Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: > OK, so let's focus only on the renaming mentioned in $subject. So far > as I can see on this thread, here are the opinions of people who > clearly gave one: > - Rename them, hard break is OK: Michael P, Bruce, Stephen (depends on > David's input), Magnus > - Rename them, hard break not OK: Fujii-san (perhaps do nothing?) > - Do nothing: Simon (add a README), Tom, Peter E
Hm, if you read me as voting against renaming pg_xlog, that wasn't the conclusion I meant to convey. I'm against moving/renaming the configuration files, because I think that will break a lot of users' scripts and habits without really buying much. But I'm for consolidating all the files that should not be copied by backup tools into one subdirectory, and I think that while we're doing that it would be sensible to rename pg_xlog and pg_clog to something that doesn't sound like it's scratch data. I'm on the fence about whether pg_logical ought to get renamed. > As far as I can see, there is a consensus to not rename pg_xlog to > pg_journal and avoid using a third meaning, but instead use pg_wal. Yeah, +1 for pg_wal, we do not need yet another name for that. > I guess that now the other renaming would be pg_clog -> pg_xact. We already have pg_subtrans, so it seems like pg_trans is an obvious suggestion. I'm not sure whether the other precedent of pg_multixact is a stronger one than that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers