On 2017-01-26 12:23:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > 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.
WTF. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
