Re: [HACKERS] Rename RECOVERYXLOG to RECOVERYWAL?

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:57 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> I searched the various threads on the xlog -> wal rename and I couldn't
> find any specific mention of why this was not renamed.
>
> I have attached a patch in case it was an oversight rather than left
> as-is on purpose.

I don't think this really buys us anything.  If we'd applied it to v10
maybe, but what do we get out of whacking it around now?

"Consistency", I hear you cry!  Fair point.  But we never had a goal
of eliminating all internal references to "xlog", just the user-facing
ones.  And since RECOVERYXLOG is not documented, I think there's a
good argument that it's not user-facing.  You could argue that since
it shows up in the file system it's implicitly user-facing, and maybe
you're right; if some other committer really wants to make this
change, I won't grouse much.  But personally I'd favor leaving it
alone to avoid having the behavior change a little bit in every new
release.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company