Re: slotname vs slot_name

On 2014-06-05 10:57:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Due to the opened window of the pg_control/catalog version bump a chance
> > has opened to fix a inconsistency I've recently been pointed
> > towards:
> > Namely that replication slots are named 'slot_name' in one half of the
> > cases and 'slotname' in the other. That's in views, SRF columns,
> > function parameters and the primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter.
> >
> > My personal tendency would be to make it slot_name everywhere except the
> > primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter. There we already have
> > precedent for shortening names.
> >
> > Other opinions?
>
> I like using "slot_name" everywhere, i.e, even in recovery.conf.
> primary_slot_name seems not so long name.

It also has the advantage that we can add a couple more slot_* options
later. Will do that.

> BTW, what about also renaming pg_llog directory? I'm afraid that
> a user can confuse pg_log with pg_llog.

We have:
* pg_ldecoding (Heikki)
* pg_lcse or pg_lcset (Petr)
* pg_logical (Andres)

I like, what a surprise, my own suggestion best. The name seems more
versatile because it's not restricted to decoding.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services