"Marko Kreen" <markokr at gmail.com> writes:
> On 9/25/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 9/25/2007 3:23 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> > On 9/25/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 9/25/2007 1:58 PM, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> >> > On 9/25/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> txid_lt_snapshot() would then be txid_committed_before(int8, sn) and
>> >> >> txid_gt_snapshot() respectively txid_committed_after(int8, sn).
>
> Agh.   I was bit in hurry as missed that you already suggested
> better names.
>
>> If you don't like txid_committed_before/after, how about
>>
>>      txid_visible_in_snapshot(int8,snap)
>>      txid_not_visible_in_snapshot(int8,snap)
>>
>> It's only names of functions that are very likely coded into programs
>> rather than used interactively. So the length of the function name
>> doesn't really matter.
>
> Now thinking about it, I like 'visible' better than 'committed'
> as latter suggest knowledge about transaction result which is
> weird, especially for committed_after.
>
> Lets go with txid_visible_in_snapshot() then.
>
>
> What now?  We should run this thru -hackers too.  I could
> even prepare patch for /contrib, to show the code too and maybe
> the hell will froze for a moment and this will get into 8.3 ;)

If this were to get into 8.3, as /contrib, that would be incredibly
sweet...  No need for workarounds to detect whether or not it's
available...
-- 
output = reverse("ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
"You know, in the rare instance that you abstain from daft conspiracy
theories, you can be quite entertaining." -- Donovan Rebbechi