Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20161020161216.GU13284@tamriel.snowman.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > One idea would be to rename pg_resetxlog to pg_resetwal. I think > > that's actually an improvement. > > This would fit in as part of a general plan to s/xlog/wal/g throughout > our user-visible names and documentation. Which seems like a good idea > to me; there's no need to expose two different terms for the same thing. > > (I don't feel a great need to unify the terminology in the code, though. > Just in stuff users see.) +1 on the general change of xlog -> wal. That said, I'd also like to see a --force or similar option or mechanism put in place to reduce the risk of users trashing their system because they think pg_resetwal is "safe." ("It's just gonna reset things to make the database start again, should be fine."). pg_destroydb almost seems like a better choice, though I suppose 'pg_clearwal' would be more acceptable. Doesn't have quite the same impact though. Not sure on the best answer here, but it's definitely foot-gun that some users have ended up using on themselves with depressing regularity. Thanks! Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: