On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: >> Daniel, >> >> * Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org) wrote: >>> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle? >>> An example of confusion that the change would create: >>> a lot of users currently choose pg_wal for the destination >>> directory of their archive command. Less-informed users >>> that set up archiving and/or log shipping in PG10 based on >>> advice online from previous versions will be fairly >>> confused about the missing pg_xlog, and the fact that the >>> pg_wal directory they're supposed to create already exists. >> >> One would hope that they would realize that's not going to work >> when they set up PG10. If they aren't paying attention sufficient >> to realize that then it seems entirely likely that they would feel >> equally safe removing the contents of a directory named 'pg_xlog'. > > So... somebody want to tally up the votes here?
Here is what I have, 6 votes clearly stated: 1. Rename nothing: Daniel, 2. Rename directory only: Andres 3. Rename everything: Stephen, Vladimir, David S, Michael P (with aliases for functions, I could live without at this point...) > And... was this discussed at the FOSDEM developer meeting? > > (Please say yes.) Looking only at the minutes, the answer is no: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/FOSDEM/PGDay_2017_Developer_Meeting -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers