On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 07:59:58PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The others you mention could be changed, probably, but I didn't
> bother as they didn't seem performance-critical.
It is not really critical indeed. There is an argument to change them
so as other folks get used to it though.
> (I also wondered whether to use "WAL" instead of "XLog" in that
> struct name, but it seems like we've mostly stuck with "xlog"
> in internal C names.)
XLOG_BLCKSZ is used, which makes me think that XLog is better than WAL
here. A matter of taste of course.
--
Michael