Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 05:21:28AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Also googling for pg_wal, I'm finding food for thought like this > > IBM technote: > > http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg3T1015637 > > which recommends to > > "Remove all files under /var/lib/pgsql/9.0/data/pg_wal/"

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > On 02/09/2017 05:19 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > >>> As someone mentioned, forcing a user to install an extension makes > >>> the deprecation visible. Another option would be to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 02/09/2017 05:19 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> As someone mentioned, forcing a user to install an extension makes >>> the deprecation visible. Another option would be to have the backend >>> spit out a WARNING the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-02-09 20:02:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I'd love to nuke pg_shadow and all the other > > > not-really-maintained backwards-compat things from when roles were > > > added too. > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> As someone mentioned, forcing a user to install an extension makes >> the deprecation visible. Another option would be to have the backend >> spit out a WARNING the first time you access anything that's >> deprecated.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Jim, * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > On 2/9/17 6:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>I'd love to nuke pg_shadow and all the other > >>not-really-maintained backwards-compat things from when roles were > >>added too. > >Not sure if it's worth the work to rip out and such, but I'm

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I'd love to nuke pg_shadow and all the other > > not-really-maintained backwards-compat things from when roles were > > added too. > > Not sure if it's worth the work to rip out and such, but I'm

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2/9/17 6:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: Anybody who still wants tsearch2 can go get it from an old version, or somebody can maintain a fork on github. Works for me. +1 +1 I'd love to nuke pg_shadow and all the other not-really-maintained backwards-compat things from when roles were added

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-02-09 19:19:21 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Also, our experience with contrib/tsearch2 suggests that the extension > > > shouldn't be part of contrib, because we

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Also, our experience with contrib/tsearch2 suggests that the extension > > shouldn't be part of contrib, because we have zero track record of getting > > rid of stuff in contrib,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, our experience with contrib/tsearch2 suggests that the extension > shouldn't be part of contrib, because we have zero track record of getting > rid of stuff in contrib, no matter how dead it is. Let's nuke tsearch2 to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Stephen Frost writes: > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: >> If we clearly mark the old function names as deprecated aliases, client >> tools will gradually move to the new names. > No, they won't. They haven't. Look at pg_shadow- it was clearly marked > as deprecated

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-02-09 13:03:41 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Counter-argument: moving the directory is going to break many tools > anyway, so why bother with function aliases? There's not actually that many tools affected by renaming pg_xlog, i.e. there are tools that aren't affected by the rename at all,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > On 02/09/2017 12:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Waiting 10+ years doesn't make the pain go away when it comes to > > removing things like that. > > Sure it does. That's two whole generations of client tools. For > example, at that point, pgAdmin3 won't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2/9/17 4:03 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > Counter-argument: moving the directory is going to break many tools > anyway, so why bother with function aliases? +1. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-02-09 15:53:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > > > What I'm voting against is the idea that we'll have aliases in core, but > > > remove them in two releases. Either that's unrealistic, or it's

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 02/09/2017 12:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: >> On 02/09/2017 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Agreed, let's just get it done. > > Although this doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-02-09 15:53:47 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > > What I'm voting against is the idea that we'll have aliases in core, but > > remove them in two releases. Either that's unrealistic, or it's just > > prolonging the pain. > > Waiting 10+ years doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > On 02/09/2017 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > >> On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Agreed, let's just get it done. > >>> > >>> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with > >>>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 02/09/2017 12:42 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: >> On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Agreed, let's just get it done. >>> >>> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with >>> backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Josh Berkus (j...@berkus.org) wrote: > On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Agreed, let's just get it done. > > > > Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with > > backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em). > > Do people want to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Agreed, let's just get it done. > > Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with > backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em). > Do people want to re-vote, understanding that those are the remaining >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with >>> backwards-compatibility function

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with >> backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em). >> Do people want to re-vote,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated: 1. Rename nothing: Daniel, 2. Rename

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-02-09 14:08:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander > > wrote: > >>> Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated: > >>> 1. Rename nothing: Daniel, > >>> 2. Rename directory only:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander > wrote: > >>> Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated: > >>> 1. Rename nothing: Daniel, > >>> 2.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2/9/17 2:14 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane >wrote: > > Robert Haas > > writes: > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander 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,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Magnus Hagander 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost > wrote: > >> Daniel, > >> > >> * Daniel Verite

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Daniel, >>> >>> * Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org)

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> * Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org) wrote: >>> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle? >>> An example of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > The substantive issue here is whether we should go forward with this > change, back out the change we already did, or leave things as they > are. Tom, David, and I seem to be in lock step on at least the > following

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

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 >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Verite 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.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > You really have (at least) three options here: > > 1. Rename nothing > 2. Rename directory only > 3. Rename everything I vote for 1) as I believe the renaming will create more confusion than it's worth, not even considering the renaming of functions and views.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> >> 1. Rename nothing >> 2. Rename directory only >> 3. Rename everything > > > 3 or 1 (with a slight preference for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:03 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 1. Rename nothing > 2. Rename directory only > 3. Rename everything > 3 or 1 (with a slight preference for 3). Not sure if my vote counts, but for me as ex-DBA consistency mattered *a lot*. This is

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-28 08:47:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > > On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > >> I do not think it can be right to rename the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-28 08:47:03 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > > On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not > >> anything else. > > > > I think

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:43 PM, David Steele wrote: > The problem I have with aliases is that they would need to be done across > the board. At the least, we would need function aliases, symlinks for the > binaries (which would rneed to be done by the packagers), aliases

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/27/17 6:47 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not anything else. I think this is the root of the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not >> anything else. > > I think this is the root of the confusion. > > A lot of people apparently

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-27 18:06:11 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'm not excited about starting to change pg_clog before we finish with > > xlog -> wal. Then we just have two half-done things, IMO. But I'm > > also not the only one with a commit bit. > > I

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 1/24/17 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm not excited about starting to change pg_clog before we finish with >> xlog -> wal. Then we just have two half-done things, IMO. But I'm >> also not the only

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/24/17 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm not excited about starting to change pg_clog before we finish with > xlog -> wal. Then we just have two half-done things, IMO. But I'm > also not the only one with a commit bit. I think that depends on which way you slice the overall mission. You

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/26/17 1:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > pg_reset_wal It's really more pg_reset_controldata, isn't it? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/26/17 2:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not > anything else. I think this is the root of the confusion. A lot of people apparently consented to renaming pg_xlog with the understanding that that's it, whereas other people understood it

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 2:21 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> But I don't see any proposals to actually change all uses of "xlog" to >>> "wal". What about program names, command line options, etc.? If

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-26 19:01:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > > > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-26 19:01:54 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing admin tools > > suck. 4) self written admin tools

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > I hear these complaints about postgres most frequently: 1) replication > sucks. 2) way too slow on analytics queries. 3) existing admin tools > suck. 4) self written admin tools (required due to 3)) constantly break. > > There's a lot being

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > We decided s/pg_xlog/pg_wal/ was necessary because people lost their > data, and we couldn't come up with a reasonable way to change it without > the name. The tradeoff is dataloss vs. dealing with directory renaming >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-26 15:45:15 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > > I *personally* don't think it's worth > > changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than > > we're apparently willing to do. I'm ok with

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > I *personally* don't think it's worth > changing all this without taking more care about backward compat than > we're apparently willing to do. I'm ok with loosing that argument. I > just don't think the previous

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-26 16:55:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >> Whether the voters recognized

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/26/17 5:07 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> And I think that's all pretty reasonable. I don't consider this a >> done deal yet. I don't consider your -1 irrelevant. But I don't >> think it's fair to present this as if I am somehow running roughshod

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > And I think that's all pretty reasonable. I don't consider this a > done deal yet. I don't consider your -1 irrelevant. But I don't > think it's fair to present this as if I am somehow running roughshod > over community process, either. If a large

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur >> >> that if

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

-Hackers, From the field. I do not care what you chose, I care that: 1. It is consistent 2. It is readable/understandable 3. It is documented 4. It is done wholesale (because of usability) That's it. So whatever meets that criteria, let's go for it. That may mean that certain commands look a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund > wrote: > > >> Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to > concur > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-26 14:28:01 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-26 12:23:24 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

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

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. > > I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog > to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. > > I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog > to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting their data don't weigh against >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas writes: > Yeah, I thought about that, too, but it doesn't really seem worth it. > If we had pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_logical, they'd be nicely > consistent with each other, but inconsistent with practically every > other utility we have: pg_basebackup,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 2017-01-24 16:47:29 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm happy to go change every last bit of it. I quite regret not aggressively opining against the renaming of pg_xlog to pg_wal. I think the few users deleting their data don't weigh against renaming a bunch of tools and function for some sense of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> What I think might be worth considering is inserting underscores, >> eg "pg_receive_wal", anywhere that we are running the abbreviation >> directly against another word. We won't get another chance. > Wouldn't

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> wrote: >>> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent >>> with

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > > wrote: > >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent > >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for >> renaming

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > >> 0002 renames programs whose names contains "xlog". > > There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent > with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas wrote: > 0002 renames programs whose names contains "xlog". There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for renaming pg_receivexlog to match. We could make it "pg_recvwal" now. -- Álvaro

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > For the record, I don't like the name "xlog" either. It would be nice > if we could have more consistent and intuitive naming. Great! > But I don't see any proposals to actually change all uses of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I don't have any problem with asking for a summary of the exact set of > > changes that he's planning to make though. My understanding is that it > > includes changing

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > For the record, I don't like the name "xlog" either. It would be nice > > if we could have more consistent and intuitive naming. > > > > But I don't see any proposals to actually change all uses of "xlog" to > >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I agree that we could probably just go ahead and switch over to starting > on the clog changes (there was agreement somewhere about the new name > for that too), but, well, if I was someone watching all of this >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 1/17/17 5:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Right. I think a lot of that stuff should also be changed. If we > > weren't OK with breaking compatibility, why'd we change pg_xlog -> > > pg_wal? If we're not willing to change

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/17/17 5:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Right. I think a lot of that stuff should also be changed. If we > weren't OK with breaking compatibility, why'd we change pg_xlog -> > pg_wal? If we're not willing to change other things to match, let's > revert that change and be done with it. For the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: >> >> Attached are two new version of the patch: one keeps aliases, one don't. > > > Both the patches (with and without aliases) are

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Attached are two new version of the patch: one keeps aliases, one don't. > Both the patches (with and without aliases) are not getting applied to the latest master. Below is the error - Perhaps you used the wrong

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Vladimir Rusinov > wrote: > > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming > them. > > Those will have no aliases as it's trivial

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:15 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming them. > Those will have no aliases as it's trivial to work-around (symlinks, shell > scripts, etc) and not so trivial to implement in a portable

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > Q: OK, where is my WAL stored? > A: pg_wal > Q: How do I reset it? > A: pg_resetxlog > On the topic of binaries, there's going to be another patch renaming them. Those will have no aliases as it's trivial to

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > I'm OK with continuing to use "xlog" as the user-facing name for the > write-ahead log, and I am OK with switching to wal. But leaving > things in the halfway in-between state where they are right now seems > like a mess. It conveniences the people

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Fujii Masao wrote: > If we do that, we should vote on all the "renaming" stuff, i.e., not only > function names but also program names like pg_receivexlog, directory names > like clog, option names like xlogdir option of initdb, return

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 1/13/17 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Certainly, check_postgres is going to have to be changed to address this > > and, unsurprisingly, it's already had to address a variety of major > > version differences that have

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On 1/13/17 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > The point I was making was that serious montioring systems would have to > be changed and I stand by that. I don't think my monitoring systems are any less serious than yours. > Certainly, check_postgres is going to have to be changed to address this >

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Attached are two new version of the patch: one keeps aliases, one don't. > Also, remove stray reference to xlog function in one of the tests. > > I've lost vote count. Should we create a form to calculate which one of

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas wrote: > From a technical point of view, that is pretty much true. But from a > user perspective, I don't think it is. If the old names live in an > extension, then they will not be there by default. Tools and scripts > will break. If that's a problem for a particular user, they

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Vladimir Rusinov writes: >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Euler Taveira wrote: >>> As Robert suggested in the other email: extension to create old names. > >> I don't follow the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 1/12/17 2:22 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > The point I was making above is that the only reason to not make such > > changes is if they really are entirely arbitrary, but I don't think > > we'd even be having this discussion if that

  1   2   >