From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: slotname vs slot_name |
Date: | 2014-06-05 01:57:58 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwGEntM0Z7ocsn2ztDADuuU-PDZHFTvt=STbr-newB70RA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to the opened window of the pg_control/catalog version bump a chance
> has opened to fix a inconsistency I've recently been pointed
> towards:
> Namely that replication slots are named 'slot_name' in one half of the
> cases and 'slotname' in the other. That's in views, SRF columns,
> function parameters and the primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter.
>
> My personal tendency would be to make it slot_name everywhere except the
> primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter. There we already have
> precedent for shortening names.
>
> Other opinions?
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.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-06-05 02:07:33 | Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses |
Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2014-06-05 01:28:29 | Re: [HACKERS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max |