On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>>> s/segment/file/g? > >>> We're already using "file" to mean something different *internally*, >>> don't we? And since pg_controldata shows fairly internal information, >>> I'm not sure this is the best idea. >>> >>> Maybe compromise and call it "segment file" - that is both easier to >>> understand than segment, and not actually using a term that means >>> something else... > >> It's also kind of wordy. I think "file" is fine. > > +1 for "file". I think the internal usage of "file" to mean "roughly > 4GB worth of WAL" is going to go away soon anyway, as there won't be > much reason to worry about the concept once LSN arithmetic is 64-bit.
Agreed. This would mean that the following lots of log messages need to be changed after 64-bit LSN will have been committed. errmsg("could not fdatasync log file %u, segment %u: %m", log, seg))); Anyway, should I add this patch into the next CF? Or is anyone planning to commit the patch for 9.2? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers