On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:44 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
> Thanks! Just after sending that, I thought to grep for "white\W*list"
> as well, and found a few more occurrences that were trivially reworded,
> per the attached patch.
Pushed.
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:12 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as
>> > "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a
>> > small internal
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:12 PM Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as
> > "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a
> > small internal variable in pgindent).
>
> Here's
Magnus Hagander writes:
> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as
> "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a
> small internal variable in pgindent).
Here's a patch that renames the @whitelist and %blacklist variables in
pgindent
On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 4:10 AM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
> > Hmm, can we find a more descriptive name for this mechanism? What
> > about calling it the "uncommitted enum table"? See attached.
>
> Thanks for picking this one up again!
>
>
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:23 PM Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:32 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as
> > "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a
> > small internal variable
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:32 PM Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to as
> "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then a small
> internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually exposed to
> userspace
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:27 AM David Steele wrote:
> On 6/17/20 12:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan
> > mailto:andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com>>
>
> >
> > I'm not sure I like doing s/Black/Block/ here. It reads oddly. There
> are
> > too
On 7/8/20 5:17 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2020-Jul-08, David Steele wrote:
On 7/8/20 4:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
I think this phrasing in the original/updated version is pretty awkward:
+ A standby server that cannot be connected to until it is promoted to a
+ primary server is
On 2020-Jul-08, David Steele wrote:
> On 7/8/20 4:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think this phrasing in the original/updated version is pretty awkward:
>
> + A standby server that cannot be connected to until it is promoted to a
> + primary server is called a ...
Yeah.
> How about:
>
> +
On 7/8/20 4:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I've pushed most of the changes.
On 2020-06-16 18:59:25 -0400, David Steele wrote:
On 6/16/20 6:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
0008: docs: WIP multi-master
Hi,
I've pushed most of the changes.
On 2020-06-16 18:59:25 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 6/16/20 6:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> > > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > > > 0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing.
> > > >
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 01:59:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > 0002: code: s/master/primary/
> > 0003: code: s/master/leader/
> > 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> > 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/
>
> I'd just like to make the pointer here
Hi,
On 2020-06-17 13:59:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > 0002: code: s/master/primary/
> > 0003: code: s/master/leader/
> > 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> > 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/
>
> I'd just like to make the pointer here that
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>> 0002: code: s/master/primary/
>> 0003: code: s/master/leader/
>> 0006: docs: s/master/root/
>> 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/
> I'd just like to make the pointer here that there's value in trying to
> use different
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> 0002: code: s/master/primary/
> 0003: code: s/master/leader/
> 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> 0007: docs: s/master/supervisor/
I'd just like to make the pointer here that there's value in trying to
use different terminology for different
On 6/17/20 12:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan
mailto:andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com>>
I'm not sure I like doing s/Black/Block/ here. It reads oddly. There are
too many other uses of Block in the sources. Forbidden might be a better
On 6/17/20 12:08 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan
> mailto:andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at this I realize we also have
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:15 PM Andrew Dunstan <
andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred
> > to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist"
On 6/17/20 11:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred
>>> to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and
>>> then a small internal variable in
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred
>> to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and
>> then a small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually
>> exposed
On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred
> to as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and
> then a small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually
> exposed to userspace
On 6/17/20 6:06 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 19:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>>> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be
On 6/17/20 6:32 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> In looking at this I realize we also have exactly one thing referred to
> as "blacklist" in our codebase, which is the "enum blacklist" (and then
> a small internal variable in pgindent). AFAICT, it's not actually
> exposed to userspace anywhere, so we
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:23 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
> remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
> attached series I replaced most of the uses.
>
> 0001: tap tests: s/master/primary/
> Pretty
On Tue, 2020-06-16 at 19:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> > > changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> > > somewhat separate
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 3:44 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "master" is the default branch name established by git, is it not? Not
> >> something we picked.
>
> > Git itself is discussing this:
> >
>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
>> "master" is the default branch name established by git, is it not? Not
>> something we picked.
> Git itself is discussing this:
> https://public-inbox.org/git/41438a0f-50e4-4e58-a3a7-3daaecb55...@jramsay.com.au/T/#t
> and it seems that
On 2020-Jun-16, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> >> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> >> somewhat separate discussion to me, as
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 19:55, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
> > On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
> >> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
> >> somewhat separate
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
>> changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
>> somewhat separate discussion to me, as it affects development
>> practices to some
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 2) 'master' as a reference to the branch. Personally I be in favor of
>changing the branch name, but it seems like it'd be better done as a
>somewhat separate discussion to me, as it affects development
>practices to some degree.
>
I'm OK
On 6/16/20 6:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
0008: docs: WIP multi-master rephrasing.
I like neither the new nor the old language much. I'd welcome input.
Why not multi-primary?
My understanding of
Hi,
On 2020-06-16 17:14:57 -0400, David Steele wrote:
> On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
> > remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
> > attached series I replaced most of the uses.
> >
Hi Andres,
Thanks for doing this!
On 6/15/20 2:22 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
We've removed the use of "slave" from most of the repo (one use
remained, included here), but we didn't do the same for master. In the
attached series I replaced most of the uses.
0001: tap tests: s/master/primary/
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:22:35AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> 0006: docs: s/master/root/
> Here using root seems a lot better than master anyway (master seems
> confusing in regard to inheritance scenarios). But perhaps parent
> would be better? Went with root since it's about the topmost
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I'd be more worried about for example postmaster.pid, which would break a
> *lot* of scripts and integrations. postmaster is also exposed in the system
> catalogs.
Oooh, that's an excellent point. A lot of random stuff knows that file
name.
To be clear, I'm not
On 6/16/20 9:10 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 6/16/20 3:26 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>> postmaster is just a symlink, which we very well could just leave in
>> place... I was really just thinking of the code level stuff. And I think
On 6/16/20 3:26 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> postmaster is just a symlink, which we very well could just leave in
> place... I was really just thinking of the code level stuff. And I think
> there's some clarity reasons to rename
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 2:23 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2020-06-15 19:54:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > > On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> > >> is a bit more
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 4:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh. That's carrying PC naming foibles to the point where they
> negatively affect our users (by breaking start scripts and such).
> I think we should leave this alone.
+1. Apart from the practical considerations, I just don't see a
problem with
Hi,
On 2020-06-15 19:54:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> >> is a bit more ambiguous, and it's largely just internal, I've left
> >> this alone
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
>> 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
>> is a bit more ambiguous, and it's largely just internal, I've left
>> this alone for now. I personally would rather see this renamed as
>>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:53:34AM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:04 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > > On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for picking this up!
> >
> > > 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> > >
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 7:04 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Thanks for picking this up!
>
> > 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> > is a bit more ambiguous, and it's largely just internal, I've left
> >
> On 15 Jun 2020, at 20:22, Andres Freund wrote:
Thanks for picking this up!
> 1) 'postmaster'. As changing that would be somewhat invasive, the word
> is a bit more ambiguous, and it's largely just internal, I've left
> this alone for now. I personally would rather see this renamed as
>
46 matches
Mail list logo
