On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-08-26 17:31:14 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I agree with all that.  But the subject line is specifically about
>> moving pg_xlog.  So if your opinion is that we shouldn't move pg_xlog,
>> then that is noted.  But if we were to move it, we can think about a
>> good place to move it to.
> I think it's probably worth moving pg_xlog, because the benefit also
> includes preventing a few users from shooting themselves somewhere
> vital. That's imo much less the case for some of the other moves.  But I
> still don't think think a largescale reorganization is a good idea,
> it'll just stall and nothing will happen.

OK, so let's focus only on the renaming mentioned in $subject. So far
as I can see on this thread, here are the opinions of people who
clearly gave one:
- Rename them, hard break is OK: Michael P, Bruce, Stephen (depends on
David's input),  Magnus
- Rename them, hard break not OK: Fujii-san (perhaps do nothing?)
- Do nothing: Simon (add a README), Tom, Peter E

As far as I can see, there is a consensus to not rename pg_xlog to
pg_journal and avoid using a third meaning, but instead use pg_wal. I
guess that now the other renaming would be pg_clog -> pg_xact. Other
opinions? Forgot you here?

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to