Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Regarding WAL Format Changes

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Regarding WAL Format Changes
Date: 2012-06-27 15:31:24
Message-ID: 1340810886-sup-2918@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié jun 27 10:56:13 -0400 2012:
> On 27.06.2012 17:14, Amit Kapila wrote:

> >    For the above 2 changed error messages, 'log segment' is used for
> > filename.
> >    However all similar changes has 'log file' for filename. There are some
> > places
> >    where 'log segment' is used and other places it is 'log file'.
> >    So is there any particular reason for it?
> 
> Not really. There are several messages that use "log file %s", and also 
> several places that use "log segment %s" Should we make it consistent 
> and use either "log segment" or "log file" everywhere?

I think it would be better to use "log segment" for WAL segments.  That
way we don't cause confusion with the regular text/csv log output files.
Heck, maybe even "WAL segment" instead of "log".

As a translator, I can't have a single, clear explanation of what "log
file" is because there are multiple meanings.  It would be better not to
depend on context.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2012-06-27 15:55:27
Subject: Re: Regarding WAL Format Changes
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-06-27 15:27:03
Subject: Re: foreign key locks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group