On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 9:58 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Some random comments: >> >> >> >> - TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus could do just as well without >> >> add_proc_to_group. You could just say if (group_no >= NUM_GROUPS) >> >> break; instead. Also, I think you could combine the two if statements >> >> inside the loop. if (nextidx != INVALID_PGPROCNO && >> >> ProcGlobal->allProcs[nextidx].clogPage == proc->clogPage) break; or >> >> something like that. >> >> > > Changed as per suggestion. > >> >> - memberXid and memberXidstatus are terrible names. Member of what? >> > >> > How about changing them to clogGroupMemberXid and >> > clogGroupMemberXidStatus? >> >> What we've currently got for group XID clearing for the ProcArray is >> clearXid, nextClearXidElem, and backendLatestXid. We should try to >> make these things consistent. Maybe rename those to >> procArrayGroupMember, procArrayGroupNext, procArrayGroupXid >> > > Here procArrayGroupXid sounds like Xid at group level, how about > procArrayGroupMemberXid? > Find the patch with renamed variables for PGProc > (rename_pgproc_variables_v1.patch) attached with mail.
I sort of hate to make these member names any longer, but I wonder if we should make it procArrayGroupClearXid etc. Otherwise it might be confused with some other time of grouping of PGPROCs. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
