On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote:
>> Daniel,
>> * Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org) wrote:
>>> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle?
>>> An example of confusion that the change would create:
>>> a lot of users currently choose pg_wal for the destination
>>> directory of their archive command. Less-informed users
>>> that set up archiving and/or log shipping in PG10 based on
>>> advice online from previous versions will be fairly
>>> confused about the missing pg_xlog, and the fact that the
>>> pg_wal directory they're supposed to create already exists.
>> One would hope that they would realize that's not going to work
>> when they set up PG10.  If they aren't paying attention sufficient
>> to realize that then it seems entirely likely that they would feel
>> equally safe removing the contents of a directory named 'pg_xlog'.
> So... somebody want to tally up the votes here?

Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated:
1. Rename nothing: Daniel,
2. Rename directory only: Andres
3. Rename everything: Stephen, Vladimir, David S, Michael P (with
aliases for functions, I could live without at this point...)

> And... was this discussed at the FOSDEM developer meeting?
> (Please say yes.)

Looking only at the minutes, the answer is no:

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to