Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:36:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 2 May 2017 at 00:10, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > On 20 April 2017 at 07:29, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br> wrote:
> >> 2017-04-19 1:32 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> >>>
> >>> I vote for "location" -> "lsn". I would expect complains about the
> >>> current inconsistency at some point, and the function names have been
> >>> already changed for this release..
> >
> > OK, so I've created a draft patch which does this.
>
> I ended up adding this to the open items list. I feel it's best to be
> on there so that we don't forget about this.
>
> If we decide not to do it then we can just remove it from the list,
> but it would be a shame to release the beta having forgotten to make
> this change.
>
> Do any of the committers who voted for this change feel inclined to
> pick this patch up?

I'll echo that question. This open item lacks a clear owner. One might argue
that 806091c caused it by doing the backward-compatibility breaks that
inspired this patch, but that's a link too tenuous to create ownership.