Re: Standardizing how pg_waldump presents recovery conflict XID cutoffs

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Standardizing how pg_waldump presents recovery conflict XID cutoffs
Date: 2022-11-15 20:29:37
Message-ID: 20221115202937.isbzgca72zwe4qtl@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I like the idea of this, but:

On 2022-11-15 10:24:05 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I'm not necessarily that attached to the name latestCommittedXid. It
> is more accurate, but it's also a little bit too similar to another
> common XID symbol name, latestCompletedXid. Can anyone suggest an
> alternative?

... I strongly dislike latestCommittedXid. That seems at least as misleading
as latestRemovedXid and has the danger of confusion with latestCompletedXid
as you mention.

How about latestAffectedXid? Based on a quick scroll through the changed
structures it seems like it'd be reasonably discriptive for most?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2022-11-15 20:47:39 Re: meson oddities
Previous Message Robert Haas 2022-11-15 20:28:44 Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam()