On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:13 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.
I'm not so sure about that. There are a lot of people who have supported the idea of making this consistent on THIS thread. It's not clear how much of a majority there is, but it's certainly no worse than 50-50. It's got far more affirmative votes than most patches that go in though, I will grant, also far more negative votes. >> 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. Gee, I can't imagine what Emerson quote you might be thinking about. :-) I think it's just never going to work to imagine that we can indefinitely go on having a pg_resetxlog binary to reset a thing that is no longer called xlog. Sure, for a few years that will seem like it makes sense, but if we didn't change it now, eventually there would be a push to do it later. And if that one gets shut down, there will eventually be another push. We'll repeatedly relitigate this whole debate, and maybe eventually the result will be one or two more things get changed ... and then later we'll do it again for what's left. I am not entirely excited about the backward-compatibility pain we're incurring here, but I think if we don't do it all at once it's just going to get spread out over time. Maybe it in a universe where PostgreSQL was controlled by a small number of people acting as one you could hold the line, but in the actual universe people just keep calling a vote on this sort of thing every two or three until they win. I don't think there's anything you or I or anyone else can say or do that will prevent that from happening, so I'd as soon just be done with it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers