From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgtranslation-translators <pgtranslation-tanslators(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: filenames in pg_basebackup |
Date: | 2012-07-25 22:23:46 |
Message-ID: | 1343254661-sup-290@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jul 25 16:25:36 -0400 2012:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Apparently, this needs a thorough revision ...
>
> Evidently. Peter tends to see to that sort of thing while he works on
> translations, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind some help.
Here's an attempt at that.
One thing I'm not clear about is the "WAL file" vs "transaction log
file" terminology. We use both in various error messages. Do we want
to consistently use one? It seems to me that we're using the very
verbose "transaction log" phrase just to avoid exposing users to the
"WAL" acronym, but that's probably a lost cause. We also have the issue
of calling those files "files" or "segments". I understand that
internally we don't want to confuse them, but I don't see that the
distinction makes any sense to users.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pg_basebackup.patch | application/octet-stream | 21.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-25 23:15:34 | Re: filenames in pg_basebackup |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-07-25 21:51:50 | Re: tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples |