Re: "serializable" in comments and names

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:02 AM, "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> The patch to implement true serializable transactions using SSI
> renames/rewords these things to avoid confusion. However, there are
> seven files which are changed only for this reason, and another
> where there is one "real" change of two lines hidden in the midst of
> dozens of lines of such wording changes. I find it distracting to
> have all this mixed in, and I fear that it will be a time-waster for
> anyone reviewing the meat of the patch. I'd like to submit a
> "no-op" patch to cover these issues in advance of the CF, to get
> them out of the way. Joe suggested that I pose the issue to the
> -hackers list.

+1.

> I could knock out a couple other files from the main patch if people
> considered it acceptable to enable the SHMQueueIsDetached function
> now, which the patch uses in several places within asserts. I would
> remove the #ifdef NOT_USED from around the (very short) function,
> and add it to the .h file.

-1.

> The changes to the comments and local variables seem pretty safe.
> The change of IsXactIsoLevelSerializable to
> IsXactIsoLevelXactSnapshotBased (or whatever name the community
> prefers)

How about IsXactIsoLevelSnapshot? Just to be a bit shorter.

...Robert