On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> To be honest, I don't really like either pg_transaction or pg_xact. > >> Neither name captures the fact that what we're really tracking here is >> the transaction *status*. pg_xact is slightly worse because it's a >> poor abbreviation for transaction, but I think the argument against >> even pg_transaction is similar to the one Tom previously levied >> against pg_logical - viz. "logical what?". The transaction themselves >> are not stored in the directory, just the commit status. The fact >> that commit status is saved is the source of the "c" in "clog". > > This really needs to move forward also. > > When it comes to the name, I tend to think of 'pg_xact' as saying "this > is where we persist info we need to keep about transactions." Today > that's just the commit status info, but I could imagine that there > might, someday, be other things that go in there. "pg_multixact" is > an example of something quite similar but does have more than just one > "thing." Also, using "pg_xact" and then "pg_subxact" and "pg_multixact" > bring them all under one consistent naming scheme.
I don't dispute the fact that you tend to think of it that way, but I think it's a real stretch to say that "pg_xact" is a clear name from the point of view of the uninitiated. Now, maybe the point is to be a little bit deliberately unclear, but "xact" for "transaction" is not a lot better than "xlog" for "write-ahead log". It's just arbitrary abbreviations we made up and you either know what they mean or you don't. We could call it "pg_xkcd" and we wouldn't be removing much in the way of clarity. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
