Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I understand that the point of renaming pg_clog to pg_xact is that
> pg_clog contains the dreaded letters l-o-g, which we hypothesize
> causes DBAs to remove it. (Alternate hypothesis: "So, that's what's
> clogging my database!")
>
> Renaming pg_subtrans to pg_subxact has no such redeeming properties.
>
> More, with each of these renamings, we're further separating what
> things are called in the code (xlog, clog, subtrans) with what they're
> called in the filesystem (wal, xact, subxact).
>
> So if we must rename pg_clog, OK, but can't we leave pg_subtrans
> alone? It's not hurting anybody.

The only argument behind the renaming of pg_subtrans is really
consistency with pg_xact, because both deal with transactions. I don't
personally mind if this portion of the renaming is left off, as you
say anything labelled with "log" is at the origin of this thread.
--
Michael