| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:46:13 |
| Message-ID: | 56817565.80509@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-12-28 17:53:20 | Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-28 17:03:50 | Re: oldest/newestCommitTs output by pg_controldata |