From: | "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Christoph Moench-Tegeder' <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Function for listing archive_status directory |
Date: | 2018-10-09 00:51:34 |
Message-ID: | 71E660EB361DF14299875B198D4CE5423DE5EA36@g01jpexmbkw25 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Christoph,
> > All similar function are named pg_ls_***dir. It is clear these
> > functions return directory contents information.
> > If the new function intends to display the contents of the directory,
> > pg_ls_***dir style might be better (e.g. pg_ls_archive_statusdir).
> > But everyone know archive_status is a directory...
> > If you want to follow the standard naming, then you may add the dir.
>
> I conciously omitted the "_dir" suffix - I'm not a great fan of long function
> names, and we want to inspect the contents of archive_status to find out about
> the status of the archiving process. But then, my main concern is the
> functionality, not the name, we can easily change the name. Is there any other
> opinion pro/contra the name?
I understand the reason why you have decided that name. And I agree with your opinion.
This function is useful for knowing about the status of archive log.
I didn't find any problems with the patch, so I'm marking it as "Ready for Committer".
Regards,
Aya Iwata
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-10-09 00:53:29 | Re: DSM segment handle generation in background workers |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2018-10-09 00:49:44 | Re: Partial index plan/cardinality costing |