* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent > >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for > >> renaming pg_receivexlog to match. We could make it "pg_recvwal" now. > > > ... I would prefer not to go there. > > I agree. "pg_recvlogical" was a badly chosen name; let's not double > down on the error. > > What I think might be worth considering is inserting underscores, > eg "pg_receive_wal", anywhere that we are running the abbreviation > directly against another word. We won't get another chance.
Wouldn't that make it 'pg_recv_wal'? Or were you referring to the 'wal' as being the abbreviation? Or did you mean underscores between words in general? If we want to switch to using underscores to seperate words, then that implies a whole lot of *additional* renaming that I'm not sure I can really get behind... initdb pg_archivecleanup pg_basebackup pgbench pg_controldata pgevent (eh, not really a binary, but it's in src/bin) pg_dumpall pg_isready All of those, to me at least seem fine, and I'd further be fine with "pg_receivewal". I haven't got any great answers wrt pg_recvlogical, though I don't particullarly like the existing name, but that's more because I have to ask myself how the heck one can receive a "logical".. Then again 'pg_controldata' only works if you realize it's really "pg_print_pg_control" or something. It's hardly controlling any data. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature