Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
Date
Msg-id 22098.1485454255@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> What I think might be worth considering is inserting underscores,
>> eg "pg_receive_wal", anywhere that we are running the abbreviation
>> directly against another word.  We won't get another chance.

> Wouldn't that make it 'pg_recv_wal'?  Or were you referring to the 'wal'
> as being the abbreviation?

The latter.  As far as the programs go, that would be

pg_receive_wal
pg_reset_wal
pg_wal_dump

The other cases you mention are, for the most part, words that we're
running together ("db" is the only exception) so they're not committing
double sins against readability.  Anyway, I'm not suggesting that we
should rename anything this patch isn't touching already.
        regards, tom lane

PS: I'm trying hard not to open the can of worms labeled "pg_dump_wal".



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Superowners