Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 10/05/17 21:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> In terms of the alternatives I listed previously, it seems like
>>> nobody liked alternatives #3, #4, or #5, leaving us with #1 (do
>>> nothing) or #2 (apply this patch).  By my count, Peter is the
>>> only one in favor of doing nothing, and is outvoted.  I'll push
>>> the patch later today if I don't hear additional comments.
> 
>> For the record, I also voted for doing nothing.
> 
> Hm, well, anybody else want to vote?
> 

I am for standardizing (although I don't have preference of location vs
lsn).

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services