Re: Rename RECOVERYXLOG to RECOVERYWAL?

On 9/1/17 2:06 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:57 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>> I searched the various threads on the xlog -> wal rename and I couldn't
>> find any specific mention of why this was not renamed.
>>
>> I have attached a patch in case it was an oversight rather than left
>> as-is on purpose.
>
> I don't think this really buys us anything. If we'd applied it to v10
> maybe, but what do we get out of whacking it around now?

I was thinking it would be applied to v10.

> "Consistency", I hear you cry! Fair point. But we never had a goal
> of eliminating all internal references to "xlog", just the user-facing
> ones. And since RECOVERYXLOG is not documented, I think there's a
> good argument that it's not user-facing. You could argue that since
> it shows up in the file system it's implicitly user-facing, and maybe
> you're right;

That's exactly my argument, in fact!

> if some other committer really wants to make this
> change, I won't grouse much. But personally I'd favor leaving it
> alone to avoid having the behavior change a little bit in every new
> release.

Seems like since v10 is still beta and this is not really documented it
wouldn't be that big a deal to make the change. If nothing else it
might keep the question from coming up in the future.

I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, though. I noticed it while
testing the v10 support in pgbackRest and thought it was worth bringing up.

Thanks,
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net