Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Similariliy, these columns may need renaming.
>
> s=# select attname, attrelid::regclass from pg_attribute where attname like '%location%';
> attname | attrelid
> -----------------+---------------------
> sent_location | pg_stat_replication
> write_location | pg_stat_replication
> flush_location | pg_stat_replication
> replay_location | pg_stat_replication
> (4 rows)

Personally, I would be inclined not to tinker with this, not just
because we're after freeze but because it doesn't seem like an
improvement to me. Referring to an LSN as location seems fine to me;
I mean, granted, it's one specific kind of location, but that doesn't
make it wrong. If somebody calls you and says "let's meet up", and
you say "sure, what's your location?" they might give you a street
address or GPS coordinates or the name of a nearby point of interest,
depending on what information they have easily available, but that's
cool; those things all let you find them. Similarly, an LSN lets you
find a particular point within a WAL stream, but I don't think that
makes it not a location.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company