On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 2:09 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > This patch has some problems with naming consistency. There's a > > function called PushUndoRequest() which calls a function called > > RegisterRollbackReq() to do the heart of the work. So, is it undo or > > rollback? Are we pushing or registering? Is it a request or a req? > > > > I think we can rename PushUndoRequest as RegisterUndoRequest and > RegisterRollbackReq as RegisterUndoRequestGuts. >
One thing I am not sure about the above suggestion is whether it is a good idea to expose a function which ends with 'Guts'. I have checked and found that there are a few similar precedents like ExecuteTruncateGuts. Another idea could be to rename RegisterRollbackReq as RegisterUndoRequestInternal. We have few precedents for that as well. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
