Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> If I read this correctly, we won't change the names of any functions 
> that we haven't *already* changed the names of, and only one view would 
> be changed to bring it into line with the rest.

I have now looked through the patch more carefully, and noted some changes
I forgot to account for in my previous summary: it also renames some
function arguments and output columns, which previously were variously
"location", "wal_position", etc.  I'd missed that for functions that don't
have a formal view in front of them.  This affects

pg_control_checkpoint
pg_control_recovery
pg_create_logical_replication_slot
pg_create_physical_replication_slot
pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes
pg_logical_slot_get_changes
pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes
pg_logical_slot_peek_changes

So that's an additional source of possible compatibility breaks.
It doesn't seem like enough to change anybody's vote on the issue,
but I mention it for completeness.

In terms of the alternatives I listed previously, it seems like
nobody liked alternatives #3, #4, or #5, leaving us with #1 (do
nothing) or #2 (apply this patch).  By my count, Peter is the
only one in favor of doing nothing, and is outvoted.  I'll push
the patch later today if I don't hear additional comments.
        regards, tom lane