| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |
| Date: | 2017-04-19 03:31:07 |
| Message-ID: | 9012.1492572667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> OK, so I've read over this thread again and I think it's time to
> summarise the votes:
> ...
> In favour of "location" -> "lsn": Stephen, David Steel,
> In favour of "lsn" -> "location": Peter, Tom, Kyotaro
FWIW, I was not voting in favor of "location"; I was just saying that
I wanted consistency. If we're voting which way to move, please count
me as a vote for "lsn".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2017-04-19 03:34:35 | Re: Quorum commit for multiple synchronous replication. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-04-19 03:26:40 | Re: Inadequate parallel-safety check for SubPlans |