On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:57 PM, David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net> wrote: > I searched the various threads on the xlog -> wal rename and I couldn't > find any specific mention of why this was not renamed. > > I have attached a patch in case it was an oversight rather than left > as-is on purpose.
I don't think this really buys us anything. If we'd applied it to v10 maybe, but what do we get out of whacking it around now? "Consistency", I hear you cry! Fair point. But we never had a goal of eliminating all internal references to "xlog", just the user-facing ones. And since RECOVERYXLOG is not documented, I think there's a good argument that it's not user-facing. You could argue that since it shows up in the file system it's implicitly user-facing, and maybe you're right; if some other committer really wants to make this change, I won't grouse much. But personally I'd favor leaving it alone to avoid having the behavior change a little bit in every new release. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
