Обсуждение: GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() vs GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid()
Why is GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() not named GlobalVisCheckRemovableFullXid() instead? ISTM that that name makes much more sense, since it is what I'd expect for a function that is the "Full XID equivalent" of GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid(). Note also that GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() is the only symbol name matching "GlobalVisIsRemovable*". Have I missed something? -- Peter Geoghegan
Hi, On 2021-02-06 12:27:30 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > Why is GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() not named > GlobalVisCheckRemovableFullXid() instead? ISTM that that name makes > much more sense, since it is what I'd expect for a function that is > the "Full XID equivalent" of GlobalVisCheckRemovableXid(). > > Note also that GlobalVisIsRemovableFullXid() is the only symbol name > matching "GlobalVisIsRemovable*". Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many times. Want me to push the fix? Greetings, Andres Freund
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > times. Want me to push the fix? Yes, please do. I could do it myself, but better that you do it yourself, just in case. -- Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:41 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > Yes, please do. I could do it myself, but better that you do it > yourself, just in case. I went ahead and fixed it myself. Thanks -- Peter Geoghegan
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > times. Want me to push the fix? Spotted another one: Shouldn't ReadNextFullTransactionId() actually be called ReadNewFullTransactionId()? Actually, the inverse approach looks like it produces fewer inconsistencies: you could instead rename ReadNewTransactionId() to ReadNextTransactionId(). -- Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 10:02 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 7:40 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Looks like a mistake on my part... Probably a rename regex that somehow > > went wrong - I went back and forth on those names way too many > > times. Want me to push the fix? > > Spotted another one: Shouldn't ReadNextFullTransactionId() actually be > called ReadNewFullTransactionId()? Actually, the inverse approach > looks like it produces fewer inconsistencies: you could instead rename > ReadNewTransactionId() to ReadNextTransactionId(). I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match...
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, > and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. > That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree > that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ > here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match... I was just going to say the same thing myself. Please do the honors if you have time... -- Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:33 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > > I prefer "next", because that's in the name of the variable it reads, > > and the variable name seemed to me to have a more obvious meaning. > > That's why I went for that name in commit 2fc7af5e966. I do agree > > that it's slightly strange that the 32 and 64 bit versions differ > > here. I'd vote for renaming the 32 bit version to match... > > I was just going to say the same thing myself. > > Please do the honors if you have time... Done.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 4:21 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > Done. Thanks. -- Peter Geoghegan