From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtpng3.m.smailru.net (smtpng3.m.smailru.net [94.100.177.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DEB5445320 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:17:35 +0300 (MSK) References: <1594821336-14468-1-git-send-email-alyapunov@tarantool.org> <1594821336-14468-4-git-send-email-alyapunov@tarantool.org> <20200715160457.GD26087@tarantool.org> From: Aleksandr Lyapunov Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 11:17:33 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200715160457.GD26087@tarantool.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3 03/13] vinyl: rename tx_manager -> vy_tx_manager List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nikita Pettik Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org I'm not sure.. Actually I believe one there will be only one cross-engine transaction engine.. That's why I made it outstanding. But actually I'm note sure it's possible. What do you think is better? use memtx specific name and if/when it'll be possible to used in both engines - rename it OR use general name and rename to memtx specific if/when it becomes obvious that it's not possible? On 15.07.2020 19:04, Nikita Pettik wrote: > On 15 Jul 16:55, Aleksandr Lyapunov wrote: >> Apart from other vinyl objects that are named with "vy_" prefix, >> its transaction manager (tx_manager) have no such prefix. >> It should have in order to avoid conflicts with global tx manager. >> >> Needed for #4897 >> --- > LGTM. The only concern I have now - mb we'd better call > new TX manager in memtx not tx_manager, but mem_tx_manager or > memtx_tx_manager? I mean tx_ prefix is more general than memtx_.. >