On 2017/05/20 9:01, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Amit Langote >> <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> On 2017/05/19 15:16, Thomas Munro wrote: >>>> Would TransitionCaptureState be a better name for this struct? >>> >>> Yes. Although, losing the Trigger prefix might make it sound a bit >>> ambiguous though. Right above its definition, we have TriggerData. So, >>> maybe TriggerTransitionCaptureState or TriggerTransitionCaptureData or >>> TriggerTransitionData may be worth considering. >> >> Ok, here's a version using TransitionCaptureState. Those other names >> seem too long, and "TriggerTransition" is already in use so >> "TriggerTransitionData" seems off the table. Having the word >> "capture" in there seems good, since this is an object that controls >> what we capture when we process a modify a set of tables. I hope >> that's clear.
I agree. TransitionCaptureState sounds good. > Sent too soon. Several variables should also be renamed to make clear > they refer to the transition capture state in effect, instead of vague > names like 'transitions'. Sorry for the version churn. Ah, I was kind of getting distracted by it earlier too; thanks. Anyway, the patch looks good to me. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
