On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:

> 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.
​Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur
that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we​ should be all-in.  If
you want to vote to reject putting the whole camel in the tent I would say
its a vote for reverting the change that put the camel's nose in there in
the first place.


> > 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.

​Once I learned what "write ahead log" was it wasn't that big a deal to
understand that this particular historical implementation detail ​means I
have to associate xlog with it.  Causing wide-spread pain to lower the
comprehension bar doesn't seems like a simple win here.  I have no real
feel for how wide-spread that would be, though.  I personally wouldn't mind
it being consistent but I am not representative of the larger user base.

David J.

Reply via email to