Robert Haas wrote: > > BTW, the stuff that we have in pg_llog are not really logs at all, so > > pg_llog was always a misnomer. > > Also true. > > For my part, I'd strongly prefer a name based on the term "logical > decoding". This feature has lots of names (change-set extraction, > logical replication, blah blah) and I worked pretty hard to make sure > that the core patch as committed referred to it in just one way > (logical decoding) everywhere. I'd rather not call this pg_lcse or > pg_lcset or something like that because now we're introducing other > terminology that's not used elsewhere. I'll defer to the group on > whether it should be called pg_logical or pg_logicaldecoding or > pg_logical_decoding or pg_ldecoding or pg_logdec or > pg_lOgIcAl___DECODing, but it should be something somehow based on > that term.
There is no reason not to use long names, so I think pg_logical_decoding is fine. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
