Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: "serializable" in comments and names

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Dan Ports" <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, "<pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names
Date: 2010-09-02 19:07:40
Message-ID: 6371.1283454460@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> XactUsesPerXactSnapshot()?
 
> That seems unambiguous.  I think I prefer it to
> IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased, so if there are no objections, I'll
> switch to XactUsesPerXactSnapshot.  The current code uses a macro
> without parentheses; are you suggesting that the new code add those?

+1 for adding parens; we might want to make a function of it someday.
 
> Names starting with IsXactIsoLevel seem more technically correct,
> but the names get long enough that it seems to me that the meaning
> gets a bit lost in the jumble of words -- which is why I like the
> shorter suggested name.  Any other opinions out there?

I don't much like the "XactUses..." aspect of it; that's just about
meaningless, because almost everything in PG could be said to be "used"
by a transaction.  How about IsolationUsesXactSnapshot (versus
IsolationUsesStmtSnapshot)?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2010-09-02 19:13:54
Subject: Re: "serializable" in comments and names
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-09-02 18:30:59
Subject: Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group