On 7 May 2012 19:44, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 7 May 2012 18:09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I also notice that the separate-checkpointer patch failed to rename >>> assorted things like BgWriterCommLock, BgWriterRequest, >>> BgWriterShmemStruct, which are all 100% inappropriately named now. >>> And it still contains various obsolete comments referring to itself >>> as the background writer. Will see about cleaning that up. > >> For want of a better name, keeping them the same seemed best. > > I was just thinking s/BgWriter/Checkpointer/, do you think that's too > long?
CheckpointerCommLock CheckpointerShmemStruct work OK CheckpointerRequest sounds a little vague, but can be tweaked It also leaves the situation that we have a catalog view called pg_stat_bgwriter that would be accessing "checkpointer" things. That's really the thorny one that I wasn't sure how to handle. Good example of why we shouldn't expose internals too much. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
