On 9/1/17 2:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > 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?
I was thinking it would be applied to v10. > "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; That's exactly my argument, in fact! > 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. Seems like since v10 is still beta and this is not really documented it wouldn't be that big a deal to make the change. If nothing else it might keep the question from coming up in the future. I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, though. I noticed it while testing the v10 support in pgbackRest and thought it was worth bringing up. Thanks, -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers