From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgtranslation-translators <pgtranslation-tanslators(at)pgfoundry(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: filenames in pg_basebackup |
Date: | 2012-07-25 23:15:34 |
Message-ID: | 6235.1343258134@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> One thing I'm not clear about is the "WAL file" vs "transaction log
> file" terminology. We use both in various error messages. Do we want
> to consistently use one? It seems to me that we're using the very
> verbose "transaction log" phrase just to avoid exposing users to the
> "WAL" acronym, but that's probably a lost cause. We also have the issue
> of calling those files "files" or "segments". I understand that
> internally we don't want to confuse them, but I don't see that the
> distinction makes any sense to users.
Yeah, we did talk about that a bit when Heikki was working on the
64-bit-XLogPointer changes. AFAIR, there was general consensus that
it'd be better to standardize on one terminology, but little agreement
on which wording to use :-(. I'd say review the thread and pick one.
He who does the work gets to make the decision.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-07-26 03:58:29 | Re: filenames in pg_basebackup |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-07-25 22:23:46 | Re: filenames in pg_basebackup |