On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> With regards to the naming, I think it would be better if we kept
>>>>> XLOG_XACT_COMMIT record exactly as it is now, and make the second
>>>>> record an entirely new record called XLOG_XACT_COMMIT_FASTPATH. That
>>>>> way we retain backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>>> I liked your previous suggestion of commit and commit-with-info
>>>> better. There's nothing particularly fast about this; it's just less
>>>> info. So to speak.
>>>
>>> Yes. There is no need to preserve backwards compatibility here, so
>>> let's just design the records in a way that makes sense on its own.
>>
>> The only difference I'm proposing is the naming. It was foolish of me
>> to propose that the data structure that is exactly the same should
>> have a different name, yet the new structure should have the same name
>> as the previous version. That will lead to confusion to no benefit. My
>> second suggestion makes sense on its own, for no other reason.
>
> That's a reasonable point, but I still don't really like the name
> "fastpath", because it's not faster, and it's not a path. It's just
> smaller. How about xl_xact_commit_simple or xl_xact_commit_compact or
> something like that?
Sure, anything like that is fine for me.
Rather annoyed at my email client because I lost my first email on
this topic, then had to retype it all from memory. The second copy
omitted things like "or similar name, that's not important" which
would have avoided the last couple of mails. :-(
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services