On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> 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...) > > Put my vote down for 2.
I think there is a very strong consensus for going either forward and renaming everything or going backward and renaming nothing. That position has been endorsed by me, David Johnston, Tom Lane, Stephen Frost, Kevin Grittner, Vladimir Rusinov, David Steele, probably Michael Paquier, and possibly JD. The only people who have explicitly voted against that position are Andres and Magnus, who prefer renaming only the directory. I think that's approximately a 7-2 vote in favor of not leaving things as they are (#2). The vote on whether to go forward (#3) or backward (#1) is closer. All of the people mentioned above as wanting consistency - except for JD whose actual vote wasn't entirely clear - indicated a preference for #3 over #1, but a number of them prefer it only weakly. Moreover, Fujii Masao and Daniel Verite prefer #1. But I still think that the vote is in favor of #3. There are 7 clear votes for that position and no more than 2 votes for any other position. Even regarding every vote that isn't for #3 as a vote for #1, which is probably not entirely accurate, it's still 7-4 in favor of #3. Looking back at older emails before things came quite so sharply into focus, I found various other opinions. But I don't think they change the overall picture very much. Cynthia Shang seemed to favor a more limited renaming, but her point was that we have lots of internal stuff that uses the xlog terminology, which isn't quite the same question as whether the user-visible stuff should all match. David Fetter favored not adding aliases when we did the renaming, but didn't clearly spell out that he favored the renaming. Similarly, Euler Taveira favored aliases in an extension, but likewise didn't clearly spell out his position on the renaming itself. (I would tend to count those as votes in favor of the renaming itself but you could argue that.) Bruce Momjian wanted to go forward to keep things clean. Simon Riggs wanted to leave things as they are, but the reason given was not so much about the merits of the issue but about not wanting to spend more time on it. You can come up with different counts depending on exactly how you interpret what all of those people said, but not even the least favorable allocation of those votes ends up with anything other than #3 as the most popular option. Therefore, I plan to go ahead and do #3. Somebody's probably going to jump in now with another opinion but I think this thread's gone on long enough. We're going to take some backward-compatibility pain here as a result of these changes and some people are going to be unhappy about that, but I think we've allowed enough time for people to weigh in with opinions and this seems to be where we're at. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers