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

* Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 1/12/17 1:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I just don't buy this argument, at all. These functions names are > > certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious > > monitoring/backup/administration tools are

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

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 was the case or that we'd > be split about the question. We already

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

On 1/12/17 1:50 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > When they're changes that are primairly going to affect > monitoring/backup/administration tools, yes, I do think we can make just > about arbitrary backward-incompatible changes. I don't agree with that. -- Peter Eisentraut

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

On 1/12/17 1:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I just don't buy this argument, at all. These functions names are > certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious > monitoring/backup/administration tools are almost certainly going to > have quite a bit to adjust to with the new

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

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On January 12, 2017 10:50:18 AM PST, Stephen Frost wrote: > >* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > >> On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> > * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > >> > >

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

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > I just don't buy this argument, at all. These functions names are > > certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious > > monitoring/backup/administration tools are almost certainly going to

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

On January 12, 2017 10:50:18 AM PST, Stephen Frost wrote: >* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: >> On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> > * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: >> > > The way I see it, either one person can spend an hour or

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

* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > > > The way I see it, either one person can spend an hour or whatever > > > creating an extension once, or every postgres install that's using > > >

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

Stephen Frost writes: > I just don't buy this argument, at all. These functions names are > certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious > monitoring/backup/administration tools are almost certainly going to > have quite a bit to adjust to with the new

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

On 2017-01-12 13:40:50 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Jim, > > * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > > The way I see it, either one person can spend an hour or whatever > > creating an extension once, or every postgres install that's using > > any of these functions now has yet another

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

Jim, * Jim Nasby (jim.na...@bluetreble.com) wrote: > The way I see it, either one person can spend an hour or whatever > creating an extension once, or every postgres install that's using > any of these functions now has yet another hurdle to upgrading. I just don't buy this argument, at all.

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:12 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

On 1/12/17 10:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Yeah, I'm not terribly for the extension idea. Robert cited the precedent of contrib/tsearch2, but I think the history of that is a good argument against this: tsearch2 is still there 9 years later and there's no indication that we'll ever get rid of it. We

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

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 reasoning for the extension. It seem to have downsides > of both

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

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 reasoning for the extension. It seem to have downsides of both alternatives combined: we still break people's code, and we add

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

On 12-01-2017 10:56, David Steele wrote: >> So, to sum up things on this thread, here are the votes about the use >> of aliases or a pure breakage: >> - No to aliases, shake the world: Stephen, Tom, David F, Vik, Bruce M => 5 >> - Yes to aliases: Michael P, Andres, Peter E., Cynthia S, Jim N, >>

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > The patch still updates a bunch of .po files. Those are normally > refreshed with the translation updates, so they had better be removed. > Other than that, the patch looks in good shape to me so switch to >

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 8:56 AM, David Steele wrote: >> So, to sum up things on this thread, here are the votes about the use >> of aliases or a pure breakage: >> - No to aliases, shake the world: Stephen, Tom, David F, Vik, Bruce M => 5 >> - Yes to aliases: Michael P,

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

On 1/12/17 12:49 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> As there are two school of thoughts on this thread, keeping your patch >>> with

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier >> wrote: >>> As there are two school of thoughts on

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: >> As there are two school of thoughts on this thread, keeping your patch >> with the compatibility table is the best move for now.

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > -errhint("pg_xlogfile_name_offset() cannot be executed > during recovery."))); > +errhint( > +"pg_wal_file_name_offset() cannot be executed > during

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

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: >> * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: >> > I think I +1 on this. >> > I've did a github search on these function names and there is a lot of code >> >

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

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> >> > pg_is_xlog_replay_paused| pg_is_recovery_paused >> >> All the other xlog_replay names have been changed to

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

On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > pg_is_xlog_replay_paused| pg_is_recovery_paused > > All the other xlog_replay names have been changed to wal_replay, so > making this one different is probably not so good. > Oops, forgot

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

On 1/9/17 10:50 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > pg_is_xlog_replay_paused| pg_is_recovery_paused All the other xlog_replay names have been changed to wal_replay, so making this one different is probably not so good. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL

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

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > - OIDs - where do I get numbers from? I was kinda choosing them at > random, > > unaware if there is some process for keeping track of them. Please point > me > > if such thing exists and I'll change them. > >

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

On 1/6/17 7:21 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that these API breakages are cost-free, but I think long-term, the costs are minor compared to the clean API we provide to users. Except in this case we can provide a clean new API without gratuitously breaking the old

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

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 09:38:42AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > I think we've been far to cavalier lately about unnecessarily breaking > > admin and monitoring tools. There's been pg_stat_activity backward > > incompat changes in most of the last releases. It's a *PAIN* to develop > >

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

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 1:31 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Attaching a patch that renames all 'xlog' functions, keeping aliases for old > ones (since it looks like majority vote is for keeping them). OK. > - OIDs - where do I get numbers from? I was kinda choosing them at

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

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-04 09:38:42 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > > > > > I think I +1 on this.

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

On 2017-01-04 09:38:42 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Andres, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > > > > I think I +1 on this. > > > > I've did a github search on these

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

Attaching a patch that renames all 'xlog' functions, keeping aliases for old ones (since it looks like majority vote is for keeping them). Following functions have been renamed: Name| Replaced by

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

Stephen Frost writes: > As I said in what you did quote above- I won't complain if someone wants > the aliases and we include them in the documentation, but I don't agree > with the other suggestions of having undocumented aliases or not making > the change. FWIW, that

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

Andres, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > > > I think I +1 on this. > > > I've did a github search on these function names and there is a lot of > > > code > > > that use them.

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

On 4 January 2017 at 07:32, Andres Freund wrote: > I think we've been far to cavalier lately about unnecessarily breaking > admin and monitoring tools. > Just renaming well known functions for a minor bit of > cleanliness seems not to survive a cost/benefit analysis. +1

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

Hi, On 2017-01-03 10:37:08 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > > I think I +1 on this. > > I've did a github search on these function names and there is a lot of code > > that use them. E.g. there is 8.5k hits for pg_last_xlog_location > >

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

* Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > > If they're maintained, then they'll be updated. I don't have any > > > sympathy if they aren't maintained. > > > > Updating may be non-trivial effort even if they are

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

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > If they're maintained, then they'll be updated. I don't have any > sympathy if they aren't maintained. > Updating may be non-trivial effort even if they are maintained. E.g. some project may need to support both 9.6 and

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

Vladamir, all, * Vladimir Rusinov (vrusi...@google.com) wrote: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > > Yeah, let's make the life of users just easier if we can, without any > > extension. Some people are likely going to forget to enable it

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

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Yeah, let's make the life of users just easier if we can, without any > extension. Some people are likely going to forget to enable it anyway, > and some more don't like installing the package dedicated to

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

On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 4:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm also -1 on this idea. If we're going to provide backwards > compatibility, we should just leave the old names in the core. > Providing an extension is more work for *everybody* --- for us, and > for the users who will have

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

Jim Nasby writes: > On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote: >> On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: >>> On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Perhaps we should split the difference and do what we did for XML: >>> provide a contrib module with alias functions

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

On 1/2/17 11:39 AM, David Steele wrote: On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the

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

On 1/2/17 12:30 PM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: >>> Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are >>> almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the directory >>> change, >> >> Some

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

On 1/1/17 9:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the directory change, Some *xlog* functions are commonly used to measure replay

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

On 12/30/16 9:57 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > Additionally, people who are actually using these bits of the system are > almost certainly going to have to adjust things for the directory > change, Some *xlog* functions are commonly used to measure replay lag. That usage would not be affected by

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

On 12/30/2016 06:46 PM, David Fetter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 09:57:25AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > >> Let's make this a clean break/change. > > +1 +1 -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise,

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

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 09:57:25AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Let's make this a clean break/change. +1 If there are known management gizmos to notify, it'd be nice to try to give them some sort of warning, but even for them, the release notes should spell it out clearly. That business

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

* Michael Paquier (michael.paqu...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > > Now, I'm not sure whether it is worth maintaining function aliases. Assuming > > these are indeed trivial (can somebody point me to example?) I see roughly > >

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

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Now, I'm not sure whether it is worth maintaining function aliases. Assuming > these are indeed trivial (can somebody point me to example?) I see roughly > the same amount of downsides both ways. > Having aliases

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

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > All backwards incompatible changes are judgement calls and people are > certainly welcome to have different opinions. I have a pretty strong > feeling about this particular change being worthwhile and also pretty > long

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

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I have a pretty strong > feeling about this particular change being worthwhile and also pretty > long overdue. > Yeah, sorry for that. I should be able to make some progress early January. -- Vladimir Rusinov Storage

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

On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Cynthia Shang < cynthia.sh...@crunchydata.com> wrote: > I have never heard of coding standards where naming conventions required a > function/variable name match a directory or file name. It seems that would > be restrictive. > This is not about coding standard,

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

Cynthia, Please don't top-post on the PG mailing lists but rather write responses in-line. * Cynthia Shang (cynthia.sh...@crunchydata.com) wrote: > I have never heard of coding standards where naming conventions required a > function/variable name match a directory or file name. It seems that

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

I have never heard of coding standards where naming conventions required a function/variable name match a directory or file name. It seems that would be restrictive. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just think the pros should outweigh the cons when choosing a path forward. In this case I see

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

Cynthia, * Cynthia Shang (cynthia.sh...@crunchydata.com) wrote: > 1) I agree with Michael that we should make this change backward compatible. > It would help PostgreSQL image if we did not break everyone's code. It costs > businesses money to rewrite code (e.g. middle tier software, backup

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

1) I agree with Michael that we should make this change backward compatible. It would help PostgreSQL image if we did not break everyone's code. It costs businesses money to rewrite code (e.g. middle tier software, backup tools, etc), test and redeploy to their customers. 2) We decided to

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

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: >>> Personally, I think this is not important, but if you want to do it, I'd >>> follow the suggestion in the thread to rename all

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

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut > > wrote: > > Others will follow later in separate patches. Or is it preferred to have > one > > huge patch submitted? >

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

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: > Others will follow later in separate patches. Or is it preferred to have one > huge patch submitted? Please yes. One

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

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 12/13/16 12:47 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > > Based on discussion in > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE1wr-w% > 3DLE1cK5uG_rmAh-VBxc4_Bnw-gAE3qSqL-%3DtWwvLvjQ%40mail.gmail.com. > > > >

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

On 12/13/16 12:47 PM, Vladimir Rusinov wrote: > Based on discussion in > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE1wr-w%3DLE1cK5uG_rmAh-VBxc4_Bnw-gAE3qSqL-%3DtWwvLvjQ%40mail.gmail.com. > > Tested via regression tests. > To be applied in master only and to be included in 10.0. I don't think

<    1   2