On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of > > the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more > > dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But > > there was overwhelming support for it, consensus on a level rarely > > seen here. > > I think that consistency was based on the change being a narrow > proposition, not a license to run around and change a lot of stuff > including the names of binary. > > Whether the voters recognized that fact at the time I would have to concur that if we are going to change from xlog to wal we should be all-in. If you want to vote to reject putting the whole camel in the tent I would say its a vote for reverting the change that put the camel's nose in there in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camel's_nose > > I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not > > anything else. I stand by what I wrote in > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobeHP2qbtMvYxG2x8Pm_ > 9utjrya-rom5xl4quya26c...@mail.gmail.com > > I'm tempted to quote Emerson ;). I don't think the naming of pg_xlog > vs. pg_wal doesn't actually have that large an impact, to change the > dynamics of the wal vs xlog dichotomy. Sure it's nothing you'd do in a > new program, but neither is it very bad. > Once I learned what "write ahead log" was it wasn't that big a deal to understand that this particular historical implementation detail means I have to associate xlog with it. Causing wide-spread pain to lower the comprehension bar doesn't seems like a simple win here. I have no real feel for how wide-spread that would be, though. I personally wouldn't mind it being consistent but I am not representative of the larger user base. David J.
