Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata
Date: 2015-12-28 17:03:50
Message-ID: 17978.1451322230@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> Ok, but now next question -- should we just change the user visible
> output to oldestCommitXID/newestCommitXID, or should we change the
> variable name everywhere it appears in source as well? Looks like each
> one appears about 25-30 times scattered across 9 or 10 files. Since they
> are new in 9.5, if we're going to change them, I'd think we ought to do
> it now or never.

The name is just as misleading at the source-code level, maybe more so
since they're all just numbers in C. +1 for changing it everywhere
before somebody makes a mistake based on the incorrect names.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2015-12-28 17:46:13 Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata
Previous Message Joe Conway 2015-12-28 16:55:37 Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata