On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:41 PM, 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.
Yeah, I thought about that, too, but it doesn't really seem worth it. If we had pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_logical, they'd be nicely consistent with each other, but inconsistent with practically every other utility we have: pg_basebackup, pg_archivecleanup, pg_controldata, etc. I'm not prepared to endorse renaming all of that stuff just to add underscores, and frankly I don't think the style pg_foobarbaz is really a problem. It's a lot easier to remember "the only underscore is after the initial pg" than it is to remember exactly how each word was abbreviated in each context. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
