On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2014-06-05 10:57:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.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. > > It also has the advantage that we can add a couple more slot_* options > later. Will do that. > > > BTW, what about also renaming pg_llog directory? I'm afraid that > > a user can confuse pg_log with pg_llog. > > We have: > * pg_ldecoding (Heikki) > * pg_lcse or pg_lcset (Petr) > * pg_logical (Andres) > > I like, what a surprise, my own suggestion best. The name seems more > versatile because it's not restricted to decoding. > > I don't care too much really, either one is find - but if I should vote, I'll split my vote between pg_locical and pg_ldecoding, I don't like lcse and lcset very much. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
