On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more > dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But > there was overwhelming support for it, consensus on a level rarely > seen here.
I think that consistency was based on the change being a narrow proposition, not a license to run around and change a lot of stuff including the names of binary. > I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not > anything else. I stand by what I wrote in > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmobehp2qbtmvyxg2x8pm_9utjrya-rom5xl4quya26c...@mail.gmail.com I'm tempted to quote Emerson ;). I don't think the naming of pg_xlog vs. pg_wal doesn't actually have that large an impact, to change the dynamics of the wal vs xlog dichotomy. Sure it's nothing you'd do in a new program, but neither is it very bad. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
