On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I agree that we could probably just go ahead and switch over to starting > on the clog changes (there was agreement somewhere about the new name > for that too), but, well, if I was someone watching all of this > discussion, I have to admit I probably wouldn't be too excited starting > on another set of name changes with all of this going on. Admittedly, > the clog rename is a lot less user-facing and perhaps we should have > started with it, but this is where we're at now.
There are no SQL-level functions and no binaries using the naming clog or subtrans, so that's a good anti-complain start. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
