At Thu, 22 Dec 2022 10:09:23 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 7:57 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 10:22:02PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Basically, we take one thing and turn it into 3. That very naturally rings > > > with "split" to me. > > > > > > Parse might work as well, certainly better than dissect. I'd still prefer > > > split though. > > > > Honestly, I don't have any counter-arguments, so I am fine to switch > > the name as you are suggesting. And pg_split_walfile_name() it is? > > +1. FWIW, a simple patch is here > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACXdZ7WGRD-_jPPeZugvWLN%2Bgxo3QtV-eZPRicUwjesM%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.
By the way the function is documented as the follows. > Extracts the file sequence number and timeline ID from a WAL file name. I didn't find the definition for the workd "file sequence number" in the doc. Instead I find "segment number" (a bit doubtful, though..). In the first place "file sequence number" and "segno" can hardly be associated by appearance by readers, I think. (Yeah, we can identify that since the another parameter is identifiable alone.) Why don't we spell out the parameter simply as "segment number"? regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center