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? -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers