On 27/08/16 20:33, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-08-26 17:31:14 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I agree with all that. But the subject line is specifically about
>>> moving pg_xlog. So if your opinion is that we shouldn't move pg_xlog,
>>> then that is noted. But if we were to move it, we can think about a
>>> good place to move it to.
>> I think it's probably worth moving pg_xlog, because the benefit also
>> includes preventing a few users from shooting themselves somewhere
>> vital. That's imo much less the case for some of the other moves. But I
>> still don't think think a largescale reorganization is a good idea,
>> it'll just stall and nothing will happen.
> OK, so let's focus only on the renaming mentioned in $subject. So far
> as I can see on this thread, here are the opinions of people who
> clearly gave one:
> - Rename them, hard break is OK: Michael P, Bruce, Stephen (depends on
> David's input), Magnus
> - Rename them, hard break not OK: Fujii-san (perhaps do nothing?)
> - Do nothing: Simon (add a README), Tom, Peter E
>
> As far as I can see, there is a consensus to not rename pg_xlog to
> pg_journal and avoid using a third meaning, but instead use pg_wal. I
> guess that now the other renaming would be pg_clog -> pg_xact. Other
> opinions? Forgot you here?
I think if there are going to be things in pg that break software - for
good reasons, like making future usage easier at the cost an initial
sharp pain - then to do so in version '10.0.0' is very appropriate! IMHO
And better to do so in 10.0.0 (especially if closely related), rather
than 10.1.0 (or whatever the next version after that is named). So, if
other things might cause breakages, do so IN 10.0.0 - rather than hold
back - assuming that there won't be hundreds or more major breakages!!!
Cheers,
Gavin
