On 2021-Jun-08, Noah Misch wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 03:21:36PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:44 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > ... or we could shorten those file names. I recall an episode > > > awhile ago where somebody complained that their version of "tar" > > > couldn't handle some of the path names in our tarball, so > > > keeping things from getting to carpal-tunnel-inducing lengths > > > does have its advantages.
Sure. I'm also the author of tuplelock-upgrade-no-deadlock -- see commit de87a084c0a5. (Oleksii submitted it as "rowlock-upgrade-deadlock"). We could rename that one too while at it. > > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:51 PM Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > > Not bad, but I would instead shorten the names to detach-[1234] or > > > detach-partition-[1234]. The marginal value of the second word is low, > > > and > > > the third word helps even less. > > Better still, the numbers can change to something descriptive: > > detach-1 => detach-visibility > detach-2 => detach-fk-FOO > detach-3 => detach-incomplete > detach-4 => detach-fk-BAR > > I don't grasp the difference between -2 and -4 enough to suggest concrete FOO > and BAR words. Looking at -2, it looks like a very small subset of -4. I probably wrote it first and failed to realize I could extend that one rather than create -4. We could just delete it. We also have partition-concurrent-attach.spec; what if we make everything a consistent set? We could have partition-attach partition-detach-visibility (-1) partition-detach-incomplete (-3) partition-detach-fk (-4) -- Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W
