| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: show xid and xmin in pg_stat_activity and pg_stat_replication |
| Date: | 2014-02-05 18:26:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYaDwtvgTcJXEwpbwAnrwYv6Gq00A=ZKjEOjMKe=GT9bg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> It feels weird to me that the new columns are called transactionid and
>> xmin. Why not xid and xmin?
>
> Actually the part of that that bothers me is "xmin", which conflicts
> with a reserved system column name. While you can legally pick such
> conflicting names for view columns, it's not going to be so much fun
> when you try to join that view against some regular table.
That's a fair point, too. So maybe we should go with something like
backend_xid and backend_xmin or some other prefix that we come up
with. My concern is more that I think they should be consistent
somehow.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-05 18:27:38 | Re: Viability of text HISTORY/INSTALL/regression README files (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document a few more regression test hazards.) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-02-05 18:25:12 | Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers |