On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: >> You may want to name the new headers dedicated to WAL records with _xlog.h >> as suffix though, like gin_xlog.h instead of ginxlog.h. > > Should not it be more consistent to use "*_wal.h", after all these efforts > to move "xlog" to "wal" everywhere?
I believe that what was agreed was to eliminate "xlog" from user-facing parts of the system, not internal details. If we're going to eliminate it from the internals, we should do that in a systematic way, not just in the parts that happen to be getting changed from by some other patch. But personally I think that would be more trouble than it's worth. It would severely complicate future back-patching -- even more than what we've done already -- for not a whole lot of gain. -- 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
