Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog

On 08/29/2016 12:04 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com
> <mailto:Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 8/26/16 4:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Splitting of ephemeral data seems to have a benefit, the rest
> seems more
> like rather noisy busywork to me.
>
>
> People accidentally blowing away pg_clog or pg_xlog is a pretty
> common occurrence, and I don't think there's all that many tools
> that reference them. I think it's well worth renaming them.
>
>
> Pretty sure every single backup tool or script out there is referencing
> pg_xlog. If it's not, then it's broken...

No, not really. Consider a filesytem backup using archiving and base
backups. It doesn't care one lick about pg_xlog. And I guarantee you
that there are tons of people running a backup like that considering the
same script would work all the way back to 8.2 (.1?).

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.