From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E407469719 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:00:18 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id r14so4028525lfm.5 for ; Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:00:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 00:00:14 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Message-ID: <20200222210014.GE14081@uranus> References: <20200219183713.17646-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20200219183713.17646-8-gorcunov@gmail.com> <2739643.e9J7NaK4W3@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2739643.e9J7NaK4W3@localhost> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH 07/14] box/txn: rename txn_write to txn_commit_async List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Georgy Kirichenko Cc: tml On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:28:41PM +0300, Georgy Kirichenko wrote: > Hi! > > Well done but I have a minor remark about some renames you suggest. > So if we would like to talk about synchronous replication then renaming > txn_write to txn_commit seems quite incorrect as there would be two stages > of transaction commit - transaction was written to journal and then > transaction was completed(with commit or rollback). And the stages should be > distinguishable. > Obviously it depends on further implementation so I let the final resolution up > to you. Thanks! You know at first I need to finish the series and have everything working and passing tests, so I'll resend the updated series and then we will discuss the better naming, sounds good?