Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20170126191339.jfs3myvanomsk7ak@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more > dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But > there was overwhelming support for it, consensus on a level rarely > seen here. I think that consistency was based on the change being a narrow proposition, not a license to run around and change a lot of stuff including the names of binary. > I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not > anything else. I stand by what I wrote in > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobeHP2qbtMvYxG2x8Pm_9utjRya-rom5XL4QuyA26c1Gg@mail.gmail.com I'm tempted to quote Emerson ;). I don't think the naming of pg_xlog vs. pg_wal doesn't actually have that large an impact, to change the dynamics of the wal vs xlog dichotomy. Sure it's nothing you'd do in a new program, but neither is it very bad. Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: