Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rename dead_tuples to dead_items in vacuumlazy.c
Date: 2021-11-24 13:49:15
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYzpgPNyfqw7Y288mqT6eiQwhA_R36dN-mLLwb88BGU7g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 7:48 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think it's more consistent if we change it to one side. I prefer "dead items".

I feel like "items" is quite a generic word, so I think I would prefer
TIDs. But it's probably not a big deal.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2021-11-24 14:15:52 Re: Parallel vacuum workers prevent the oldest xmin from advancing
Previous Message Joshua Brindle 2021-11-24 13:49:10 Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend