RE: Function for listing archive_status directory - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Iwata, Aya
Subject RE: Function for listing archive_status directory
Date
Msg-id 71E660EB361DF14299875B198D4CE5423DE5EA36@g01jpexmbkw25
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Function for listing archive_status directory  ('Christoph Moench-Tegeder' <cmt@burggraben.net>)
Responses RE: Function for listing archive_status directory  ("Iwata, Aya" <iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com>)
RE: Function for listing archive_status directory  ("Iwata, Aya" <iwata.aya@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Christoph,

> > All similar function are named pg_ls_***dir. It is clear these
> > functions return directory contents information.
> > If the new function intends to display the contents of the directory,
> > pg_ls_***dir style might be better (e.g. pg_ls_archive_statusdir).
> > But everyone know archive_status is a directory...
> > If you want to follow the standard naming, then you may add the dir.
> 
> I conciously omitted the "_dir" suffix - I'm not a great fan of long function
> names, and we want to inspect the contents of archive_status to find out about
> the status of the archiving process. But then, my main concern is the
> functionality, not the name, we can easily change the name. Is there any other
> opinion pro/contra the name?

I understand the reason why you have decided that name. And I agree with your opinion.

This function is useful for knowing about the status of archive log.
I didn't find any problems with the patch, so I'm marking it as "Ready for Committer".

Regards,
Aya Iwata

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: DSM segment handle generation in background workers