| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Date: | 2019-07-16 14:02:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+HnUzLWBNEtdURkXsf9WM7sA13VNGCybr5JYHDNc0_0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:09 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch has some problems with naming consistency. There's a
> > function called PushUndoRequest() which calls a function called
> > RegisterRollbackReq() to do the heart of the work. So, is it undo or
> > rollback? Are we pushing or registering? Is it a request or a req?
> >
>
> I think we can rename PushUndoRequest as RegisterUndoRequest and
> RegisterRollbackReq as RegisterUndoRequestGuts.
>
One thing I am not sure about the above suggestion is whether it is a
good idea to expose a function which ends with 'Guts'. I have checked
and found that there are a few similar precedents like
ExecuteTruncateGuts. Another idea could be to rename
RegisterRollbackReq as RegisterUndoRequestInternal. We have few
precedents for that as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2019-07-16 14:04:28 | Re: SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE |
| Previous Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2019-07-16 13:59:58 | Re: SQL/JSON: functions |