Re: Reporting WAL file containing checkpoint's REDO record in pg_controldata's result - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Reporting WAL file containing checkpoint's REDO record in pg_controldata's result
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY8PDdOWh4aP4NcT+A-EQTrriUFHQwEtfQYkNWFFS6CHw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reporting WAL file containing checkpoint's REDO record in pg_controldata's result  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: Reporting WAL file containing checkpoint's REDO record in pg_controldata's result  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> s/segment/file/g?
>>
>> Yep, "file" might be more intuitive for a user than "segment". Attached is the
>> "file" version of the patch.
>
> We're already using "file" to mean something different *internally*,
> don't we? And since pg_controldata shows fairly internal information,
> I'm not sure this is the best idea.
>
> Maybe compromise and call it "segment file" - that is both easier to
> understand than segment, and not actually using a term that means
> something else...

It's also kind of wordy.  I think "file" is fine.  There are a few
references to xlogid indicating a "file number", but the actual field
name is just xlogid.  We also use the term "file" to mean the other
thing, as in XLOGfileslop, and I have a hard time believing anyone's
really going to get confused about what is meant here.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Command Triggers, v16
Next
From: Gabriele Bartolini
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays