Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > I made two more changes:
> > 1. introduce newestCommitTs. Original code was using lastCommitXact to
> > check that no "future" transaction is asked for, but this doesn't really
> > work if a long-running transaction is committed, because asking for
> > transactions with a higher Xid but which were committed earlier would
> > raise an error.
>
> I'm kind of disappointed that, in spite of previous review comments,
> this got committed with extensive use of the CommitTs naming. I think
> that's confusing, but it's also something that will be awkward if we
> want to add other data, such as the much-discussed commit LSN, to the
> facility.
I never saw a comment that CommitTs was an unwanted name. There were
some that said that committs wasn't liked because it looked like a
misspelling, so we added an underscore -- stuff in lower case is
commit_ts everywhere. Stuff in camel case didn't get the underscore
because it didn't seem necessary. But other than that issue, the name
wasn't questioned, as far as I'm aware.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services