On 06/05/2014 01:57 PM, Andres Freund 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.
The problem with pg_logical is that it's not restricted to much at all
;-), "logical" is an awfully generic name.
BTW, the stuff that we have in pg_llog are not really logs at all, so
pg_llog was always a misnomer.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
