On 2014-02-05 13:26:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > >> It feels weird to me that the new columns are called transactionid and > >> xmin. Why not xid and xmin? > > > > Actually the part of that that bothers me is "xmin", which conflicts > > with a reserved system column name. While you can legally pick such > > conflicting names for view columns, it's not going to be so much fun > > when you try to join that view against some regular table. > > That's a fair point, too. So maybe we should go with something like > backend_xid and backend_xmin or some other prefix that we come up > with. My concern is more that I think they should be consistent > somehow.
Those work for me. We have a bit of a confusing situation atm, pg_prepared_xact calls it's xid transaction, pg_locks transactionid... So if we add a new speling, we should like it sufficiently to use it in the future. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
