On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand that the point of renaming pg_clog to pg_xact is that > pg_clog contains the dreaded letters l-o-g, which we hypothesize > causes DBAs to remove it. (Alternate hypothesis: "So, that's what's > clogging my database!") > > Renaming pg_subtrans to pg_subxact has no such redeeming properties. > > More, with each of these renamings, we're further separating what > things are called in the code (xlog, clog, subtrans) with what they're > called in the filesystem (wal, xact, subxact). > > So if we must rename pg_clog, OK, but can't we leave pg_subtrans > alone? It's not hurting anybody.
The only argument behind the renaming of pg_subtrans is really consistency with pg_xact, because both deal with transactions. I don't personally mind if this portion of the renaming is left off, as you say anything labelled with "log" is at the origin of this thread. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
