Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 4:21 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > Done. Thanks. -- Peter Geoghegan
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:33 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > > I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, > > and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. > > That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree > > that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ > > here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match... > > I was just going to say the same thing myself. > > Please do the honors if you have time... Done.
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Thomas Munro wrote: > I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, > and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. > That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree > that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ > here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match... I was just going to say the same thing myself. Please do the honors if you have time... -- Peter Geoghegan
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:02 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund wrote: > > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > > times. Want me to push the fix? > > Spotted another one: Shouldn't ReadNextFullTransactionId() actually be > called ReadNewFullTransactionId()? Actually, the inverse approach > looks like it produces fewer inconsistencies: you could instead rename > ReadNewTransactionId() to ReadNextTransactionId(). I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match...
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund wrote: > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > times. Want me to push the fix? Spotted another one: Shouldn't ReadNextFullTransactionId() actually be called ReadNewFullTransactionId()? Actually, the inverse approach looks like it produces fewer inconsistencies: you could instead rename ReadNewTransactionId() to ReadNextTransactionId(). -- Peter Geoghegan
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Yes, please do. I could do it myself, but better that you do it > yourself, just in case. I went ahead and fixed it myself. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund wrote: > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > times. Want me to push the fix? Yes, please do. I could do it myself, but better that you do it yourself, just in case. -- Peter Geoghegan
Re: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
Hi, On 2021-02-06 12:27:30 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Why is GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() not named > GlobalVisCheckRemovableFullXid() instead? ISTM that that name makes > much more sense, since it is what I'd expect for a function that is > the "Full XID equivalent" of GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid(). > > Note also that GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() is the only symbol name > matching "GlobalVisIsRemovable*". Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many times. Want me to push the fix? Greetings, Andres Freund
GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
Why is GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() not named GlobalVisCheckRemovableFullXid() instead? ISTM that that name makes much more sense, since it is what I'd expect for a function that is the "Full XID equivalent" of GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid(). Note also that GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() is the only symbol name matching "GlobalVisIsRemovable*". Have I missed something? -- Peter Geoghegan