On 7 May 2012 19:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
>> On 7 May 2012 18:09, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I also notice that the separate-checkpointer patch failed to rename
>>> assorted things like BgWriterCommLock, BgWriterRequest,
>>> BgWriterShmemStruct, which are all 100% inappropriately named now.
>>> And it still contains various obsolete comments referring to itself
>>> as the background writer. Will see about cleaning that up.
>
>> For want of a better name, keeping them the same seemed best.
>
> I was just thinking s/BgWriter/Checkpointer/, do you think that's too
> long?
CheckpointerCommLock
CheckpointerShmemStruct
work OK
CheckpointerRequest
sounds a little vague, but can be tweaked
It also leaves the situation that we have a catalog view called
pg_stat_bgwriter that would be accessing "checkpointer" things. That's
really the thorny one that I wasn't sure how to handle. Good example
of why we shouldn't expose internals too much.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services