Re: Sigh, we need an initdb

Hi,

On 2014-06-04 14:52:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we could possibly ship 9.4 without fixing this, but it would be
> imprudent. Anyone think differently?

Agreed. Additionally I also agree with Stefan that the price of a initdb
during beta isn't that high these days.

> Of course, if we do fix this then the door opens for pushing other
> initdb-forcing fixes into 9.4beta2, such as the LOBLKSIZE addition
> that I was looking at when I noticed this, or the pg_lsn catalog
> additions that were being discussed a couple weeks ago.

Other things I'd like to change in that case:

* rename pg_replication_slots.xmin to something else. After the
replication slot patch went in, in another patch's review you/Tom
objected that xmin isn't the best name. The only problem being that I
still don't have a better idea than my original 'data_xmin' which
Robert disliked.

* Standardize on either slot_name for the replication slot's
name. Currently some functions have a parameter named 'slotname' but
all columnnames (from SRFs) are slot_name. That's not really bad since
the parameter names don't really mean much, but if we can we should
fix it imo.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services