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 22262.1485454499@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Yeah, I thought about that, too, but it doesn't really seem worth it.
> If we had pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_logical, they'd be nicely
> consistent with each other, but inconsistent with practically every
> other utility we have: pg_basebackup, pg_archivecleanup,
> pg_controldata, etc.

Mmm, good point.  I was looking at pg_test_fsync and pg_test_timing,
but those are the only exceptions, and they're only quasi-user-facing
anyway.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Superowners
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size