On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...) > Put my vote down for 2. > > 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 We discussed discussing it :) And came to the conclusion that we did not have enough of a quorum to actually make any decision on it complete, so we figured it's better if everybody just chime in individually. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
