From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from [87.239.111.99] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2DAE6EC55; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:46:11 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org A2DAE6EC55 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tarantool.org; s=dev; t=1626349571; bh=MhMkk/KeiO3YL+6ALVoWhfMigJDbrIv6Ojn6Pl3nWcQ=; h=Date:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=O1Ne1kNTvphOArKLSVNxFPijLLHpbP1YhSGf2DsjEz6tDDoNEEcZ801HceRI8tUyD vyNKYNRyJPjeIRnHtj55Nf5+zRo8ciT0WZzvqc+hTP+jAMbECtR8R3SGs4sj4vJmSQ ulyp3R8fzGEILBETHNyp3scEvjmXCJbpxs+CmUHU= Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D81B6EC55 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:46:10 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 dev.tarantool.org 5D81B6EC55 Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id t17so9381936lfq.0 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=CyGqh/9+kRLf2jrUuRGnIuMF4pa5tT9kaq4VyA+3uqY=; b=LgmvEoViX6fQPkHFDjhKelA0yLXO9MIdrcL24GoOuBYYDDdpYsXFEAVbB7oCr84nsY JZxp8o5NFjToaS84PCOkiJEqu7AM4y2K5kc9vk5ElTJ8UxemkSyV+VE+zRKPXqslshzB ugEXtsDrszSvMMcUUYj05A3gzhYiGyZJkeRL+gJ90y30MyfhkXKhuP/ez19Z95iTiFT4 i4FKw3MS5xJKwGiqPuTtRHL3cZn+NZxDqfzbVQqP4xbeNfLb3psWx6PKZ3lU8UPu8Tdt +rvNRk3EtOmtFVppK5cpgEnNzxlfA04zMfoLvXYstIT1rxAmGX8vS8XOqlLF2XqnjLq9 Nwvw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QlvENiGxUBSPMET/2rSbhkhHDe2qh5kkgRSCFT8IQ9ubNqu2Y 30cj47JlfxwJp0VXmuO6F4UnE+Xew7X2vg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybSp+FtOZdX6H1TOFYLboL/tvkC8/1+F+HudrmfRHVz/myE4jhX+11tDcRjkQSKu2Opqt3Zw== X-Received: by 2002:a19:6b06:: with SMTP id d6mr3204286lfa.525.1626349569289; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grain.localdomain ([5.18.255.97]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v18sm395101lfp.194.2021.07.15.04.46.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 04:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by grain.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 45C9A5A001E; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:46:06 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 14:46:06 +0300 To: Serge Petrenko Cc: tml , Vladislav Shpilevoy Message-ID: References: <20210714212328.701280-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20210714212328.701280-4-gorcunov@gmail.com> <76124bb2-95fa-5312-e9ae-8c25c527bca2@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76124bb2-95fa-5312-e9ae-8c25c527bca2@tarantool.org> User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7 (2021-05-04) Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [RFC v5 3/5] limbo: gather promote tracking into a separate structure X-BeenThere: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches Reply-To: Cyrill Gorcunov Errors-To: tarantool-patches-bounces@dev.tarantool.org Sender: "Tarantool-patches" On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 02:28:46PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote: > > +static void > > +txn_limbo_promote_create(struct txn_limbo_promote *pmt) > > +{ > > + vclock_create(&pmt->terms_map); > > + pmt->terms_max = 0; > > +} > > + > > I don't like the name (limbo->promote, struct txn_limbo_promote), > but can't come up with a better one. > > The structure doesn't hold a specific promote. It's more like "promote > history", or "terms seen". > > Maybe something like "term history" ? "term tracker" ? > "remote term set", "term set" ? > > Just a suggestion, my names are not too good. Sure! How about struct txn_terms { latch lock; vclock_t map; uint64_t map_max; }; struct txn_limbo { ... struct txn_terms terms; ... }; I don't mind for any name (except "set" because set can't contain duplicated elements and our vclock can have same term installed for different replicas) Cyrill