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 m nemonic 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 point. David J.