On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:59 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I agree that we could probably just go ahead and switch over to starting
> on the clog changes (there was agreement somewhere about the new name
> for that too), but, well, if I was someone watching all of this
> discussion, I have to admit I probably wouldn't be too excited starting
> on another set of name changes with all of this going on. Admittedly,
> the clog rename is a lot less user-facing and perhaps we should have
> started with it, but this is where we're at now.
There are no SQL-level functions and no binaries using the naming clog
or subtrans, so that's a good anti-complain start.
--
Michael
