Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:29:47PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > When it comes to the name, I tend to think of 'pg_xact' as saying "this
> > is where we persist info we need to keep about transactions." Today
> > that's just the commit status info, but I could imagine that there
> > might, someday, be other things that go in there. "pg_multixact" is
> > an example of something quite similar but does have more than just one
> > "thing." Also, using "pg_xact" and then "pg_subxact" and "pg_multixact"
> > bring them all under one consistent naming scheme.
>
> I don't dispute the fact that you tend to think of it that way, but I
> think it's a real stretch to say that "pg_xact" is a clear name from
> the point of view of the uninitiated. Now, maybe the point is to be a
> little bit deliberately unclear, but "xact" for "transaction" is not a
> lot better than "xlog" for "write-ahead log". It's just arbitrary
> abbreviations we made up and you either know what they mean or you
> don't. We could call it "pg_xkcd" and we wouldn't be removing much in
> the way of clarity.

What is your suggestion for a name? If you have none, I suggest we use
"pg_xact".

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +