On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > For the record, I don't like the name "xlog" either. It would be nice > if we could have more consistent and intuitive naming.
Great! > But I don't see any proposals to actually change all uses of "xlog" to > "wal". What about program names, command line options, etc.? If the > argument is, we changed one thing, we should change the rest, then let's > see that. I think that argument itself is flawed, but if that's what > we're going with, let's see the whole plan. I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. I was expecting after I committed the initial rename that somebody would provide a follow-on patch to do the rest of it in short order. Instead, months went by and we still don't have a complete patch. But I don't see why that has to take more than a day's work, probably just a few hours. I'd like to do that and move on. > Moreover, I see we still have the pg_clog directory. I thought that was > supposed to be renamed as well, to avoid confusing it with a "log" > directory. Surely, we should at least conclude that original chapter > before going further. I'm not excited about starting to change pg_clog before we finish with xlog -> wal. Then we just have two half-done things, IMO. But I'm also not the only one with a commit bit. -- 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