On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> I found one email where you said you didn't like committs and preferred
> commit_timestamp instead. I don't see how making that change would have
> made you happy wrt the concern you just expressed.
Fair point.
I'm still not sure we got this one right, but I don't know that I want
to spend more time wrangling about it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company