| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia(dot)shang(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Date: | 2017-01-26 18:14:59 |
| Message-ID: | 22262.1485454499@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, I thought about that, too, but it doesn't really seem worth it.
> If we had pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_logical, they'd be nicely
> consistent with each other, but inconsistent with practically every
> other utility we have: pg_basebackup, pg_archivecleanup,
> pg_controldata, etc.
Mmm, good point. I was looking at pg_test_fsync and pg_test_timing,
but those are the only exceptions, and they're only quasi-user-facing
anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-01-26 18:16:13 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-01-26 18:12:21 | Re: Superowners |