Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Peter,

* Peter Eisentraut (peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 other things to match, let's
> > revert that change and be done with it.
>
> 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
> "wal". What about program names, command line options, etc.? If the
> argument is, we changed one thing, we should change the rest, then let's
> see that. I think that argument itself is flawed, but if that's what
> we're going with, let's see the whole plan.

That is the proposal and what Vladimir is working towards, as I
understand it, but one piece at a time rather than one big huge patch,
as he's already stated elsewhere on this thread.

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 program names, command line options, etc.

> Moreover, I see we still have the pg_clog directory. I thought that was
> supposed to be renamed as well, to avoid confusing it with a "log"
> directory. Surely, we should at least conclude that original chapter
> before going further.

My understanding is that it is planned to be changed also, but it's
backed up behind the sudden hang-up with making progress on the xlog ->
WAL changes.

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
discussion, I have to admit I probably wouldn't be too excited starting
on another set of name changes with all of this going on. Admittedly,
the clog rename is a lot less user-facing and perhaps we should have
started with it, but this is where we're at now.

Thanks!

Stephen