On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > When it comes to the name, I tend to think of 'pg_xact' as saying "this >> > is where we persist info we need to keep about transactions." Today >> > that's just the commit status info, but I could imagine that there >> > might, someday, be other things that go in there. "pg_multixact" is >> > an example of something quite similar but does have more than just one >> > "thing." Also, using "pg_xact" and then "pg_subxact" and "pg_multixact" >> > bring them all under one consistent naming scheme. >> >> I don't dispute the fact that you tend to think of it that way, but I >> think it's a real stretch to say that "pg_xact" is a clear name from >> the point of view of the uninitiated. Now, maybe the point is to be a >> little bit deliberately unclear, but "xact" for "transaction" is not a >> lot better than "xlog" for "write-ahead log". It's just arbitrary >> abbreviations we made up and you either know what they mean or you >> don't. We could call it "pg_xkcd" and we wouldn't be removing much in >> the way of clarity. > > What is your suggestion for a name? If you have none, I suggest we use > "pg_xact".
I'm not sure. pg_transaction_status would be clear, but it's long. Is pg_xact actually better than pg_clog? -- 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