Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
> wrote:
> >> Daniel,
> >>
> >> * Daniel Verite (daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org) wrote:
> >>> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle?
> >>> An example of confusion that the change would create:
> >>> a lot of users currently choose pg_wal for the destination
> >>> directory of their archive command. Less-informed users
> >>> that set up archiving and/or log shipping in PG10 based on
> >>> advice online from previous versions will be fairly
> >>> confused about the missing pg_xlog, and the fact that the
> >>> pg_wal directory they're supposed to create already exists.
> >>
> >> One would hope that they would realize that's not going to work
> >> when they set up PG10. If they aren't paying attention sufficient
> >> to realize that then it seems entirely likely that they would feel
> >> equally safe removing the contents of a directory named 'pg_xlog'.
> >
> > So... somebody want to tally up the votes here?
>
> Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated:
> 1. Rename nothing: Daniel,
> 2. Rename directory only: Andres
> 3. Rename everything: Stephen, Vladimir, David S, Michael P (with
> aliases for functions, I could live without at this point...)
>

Put my vote down for 2.

> > And... was this discussed at the FOSDEM developer meeting?
> >
> > (Please say yes.)
>
> Looking only at the minutes, the answer is no:
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2017_Developer_Meeting

We discussed discussing it :) And came to the conclusion that we did not
have enough of a quorum to actually make any decision on it complete, so we
figured it's better if everybody just chime in individually.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/