On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusi...@google.com>

> Attached are two new version of the patch: one keeps aliases, one don't.

Both the patches (with and without aliases) are not getting applied to the
latest master. Below is the error -

Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
|diff --git a/src/include/access/xlog_fn.h b/src/include/access/xlog_fn.h
|index a013d047a2..a46b2f995c 100644
|--- a/src/include/access/xlog_fn.h
|+++ b/src/include/access/xlog_fn.h
File to patch:

Also, remove stray reference to xlog function in one of the tests.
> I've lost vote count. Should we create a form to calculate which one of
> the patches should be commited?
> If we decide to go the extension way, perhaps it can be maintained outside
> of core Postgres?

My take on having aliases to the functions :

In my opinion as a DBA, I agree with having no-aliases. Having functions
doing the same thing with two different names could be confusing. I have
been doing quite a number of PostgreSQL upgrades since few years, i do not
see, the function name changes as a major issue or a road-blocker in the
upgrade exercise. If the function name has changed, it has changed. It
would be a serious thing to consider during the upgrade if there is a
change in the functionality of a particular function as it needs testing. I
think, changing of the function names in the scripts and custom-tools has
to be executed and might take up a bit of extra time.

IMHO, It is not a good idea to keep aliases as this would make the DBAs
lazier to change the function names on priority in the automated
scripts/jobs/tools during the upgrades. Especially, in bigger and complex
environments where-in database environments are handled by different
multiple groups of DBAs, it could be possible that both *xlog* functions
and *wal* functions will be used up in the scripts and all of them will be
working fine and once the *xlog* functions names are completely removed,
then some of the jobs/scripts start failing.

I would vote for "no-aliases".

Venkata Balaji N

Database Consultant

Reply via email to