Commit timestamp abbreviations

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I noticed this when looking at the allocated shared memory structures in
head:

shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs Ctl: 0
shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs shared: 0

I thought we got rid of the idea that 'Ts' means timestamp. Was this
part forgotten?

Do you have a specific reference? That's not the concern I remember,
and I sure don't want to re-read that whole thread again.

--
�lvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 06:00:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I noticed this when looking at the allocated shared memory structures in
head:

shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs Ctl: 0
shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs shared: 0

I thought we got rid of the idea that 'Ts' means timestamp. Was this
part forgotten?

Do you have a specific reference? That's not the concern I remember,
and I sure don't want to re-read that whole thread again.

I remember the issue of using _ts and 'ts' inconsistently, and I thought
we were going to spell out timestamp in more places, but maybe I am
remembering incorrectly.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ Everyone has their own god. +

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 24/12/14 15:15, Bruce Momjian wrote:

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 06:00:21PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I noticed this when looking at the allocated shared memory structures in
head:

shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs Ctl: 0
shared memory alignment 64-byte of CommitTs shared: 0

I thought we got rid of the idea that 'Ts' means timestamp. Was this
part forgotten?

Do you have a specific reference? That's not the concern I remember,
and I sure don't want to re-read that whole thread again.

I remember the issue of using _ts and 'ts' inconsistently, and I thought
we were going to spell out timestamp in more places, but maybe I am
remembering incorrectly.

The change was from committs to commit_ts + CommitTs depending on place.

--
Petr Jelinek 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