On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I'm mostly with Stephen on this. As the names stand, they encourage > people to go look at the documentation, > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/storage-file-layout.html > which will provide more information than you'd ever get out of any > reasonable directory name.
Well, we could change them all to pg_a, pg_b, pg_c, pg_d, ... which would encourage that even more strongly. But I don't think that proposal can be taken seriously. Giving things meaningful names is a good practice in almost every case. > Having said that, I still don't like "pg_logical", but I suppose > renaming it would have more downsides than upsides. Remind me what your beef is? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers