From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia(dot)shang(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Date: | 2017-01-26 19:23:24 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYfNhv9pLyNjd9NX1_FsCmQF4QMNqF6G6YuYQ8NFz2o3w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of
> > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more
> > dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But
> > there was overwhelming support for it, consensus on a level rarely
> > seen here.
>
> I think that consistency was based on the change being a narrow
> proposition, not a license to run around and change a lot of stuff
> including the names of binary.
>
>
Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur
that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in. If
you want to vote to reject putting the whole camel in the tent I would say
its a vote for reverting the change that put the camel's nose in there in
the first place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel's_nose
> > I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not
> > anything else. I stand by what I wrote in
> >
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobeHP2qbtMvYxG2x8Pm_
> 9utjRya-rom5XL4QuyA26c1Gg(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
>
> I'm tempted to quote Emerson ;). I don't think the naming of pg_xlog
> vs. pg_wal doesn't actually have that large an impact, to change the
> dynamics of the wal vs xlog dichotomy. Sure it's nothing you'd do in a
> new program, but neither is it very bad.
>
Once I learned what "write ahead log" was it wasn't that big a deal to
understand that this particular historical implementation detail means I
have to associate xlog with it. Causing wide-spread pain to lower the
comprehension bar doesn't seems like a simple win here. I have no real
feel for how wide-spread that would be, though. I personally wouldn't mind
it being consistent but I am not representative of the larger user base.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-26 19:24:30 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-26 19:20:59 | Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby |