Re: xlog file naming

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 12:01 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's possible there's something we want to change here, but it's far
>> from obvious what that thing is. Our WAL file handling is
>> ridiculously hard to understand, but the problem with changing it is
>> that there will then be two things people have to understand, and a
>> lot of tools that have to be revamped. It isn't clear that it's worth
>> going through that kind of pain for a minor improvement in clarity.

> The idea was that since we already broke some tools, possibly silently
> (...FF files that they previously skipped), a more radical renaming
> might break those tools more obviously, and make some other things
> simpler/easier down the road.

I think we already had that discussion, and the consensus was that
we did not want to break WAL-related tools unnecessarily. If there
were a high probability that the FF change will actually break tools in
practice, the conclusion might have been different; but nobody believes
that there is much risk there.

regards, tom lane