Re: slotname vs slot_name

On 06/05/2014 01:57 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.

The problem with pg_logical is that it's not restricted to much at all
;-), "logical" is an awfully generic name.

BTW, the stuff that we have in pg_llog are not really logs at all, so
pg_llog was always a misnomer.

- Heikki