On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Those don't have the virtue of being at least somewhat ​
​ like pg_xact.

I'll toss my lot in with Steven's and Tom's on this.

​I have no problem continuing keeping with historical precedent ​and
allowing mnemonic abbreviations in our directory and file names at this

David J.


Reply via email to