Re: slotname vs slot_name

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slotname vs slot_name
Date: 2014-06-05 02:09:27
Message-ID: CA+HiwqGh39v0xOtEGqCCg-ZvW4DxcNBSqCRm-zTQr3wOq=-Fyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I like using "slot_name" everywhere, i.e, even in recovery.conf.
> primary_slot_name seems not so long name.
>
> BTW, what about also renaming pg_llog directory? I'm afraid that
> a user can confuse pg_log with pg_llog.
>

Recently I came across this while tab-completing pg_log ;-)
I remember asking to document pg_llog elsewhere.

--
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G Johnston 2014-06-05 02:13:35 Re: Sigh, we need an initdb
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-06-05 02:07:33 Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses