From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |
Date: | 2014-04-24 07:39:21 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEw7BBK13FnoEbJQnVEXGZBH2h08V1rj5AROYBU27-TN_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> > * pg_receivexlog
> > * pg_recvlogical
> > binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> > once "pg_receive"?
>
> +1
>
Digging up a really old thread since I just got annoyed by the inconsistent
naming the first time myself :)
I can't find that this discussion actually came to a proper consensus, but
I may be missing something. Did we go with pg_recvlogical just because we
couldn't decide on a better name, or did we intentionally decide it was the
best?
I definitely think pg_receivelogical would be a better name, for
consistency (because it's way too late to rename pg_receivexlog of course -
once released that can't really chance. Which is why *if* we want to change
the name of pg_recvxlog we have a few more days to make a decision..)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-24 07:43:50 | Re: logical changeset generation v6 |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-04-24 07:31:55 | Re: Compilation of pg_recvlogical on Windows |