| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 17:53:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20151228175320.GK58441@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway wrote:
> On 12/28/2015 09:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Ok, I'm on it now
Great, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2015-12-28 18:21:56 | Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2015-12-28 17:46:13 | Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata |