Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Date: 2017-04-14 22:52:13
Message-ID: 19052.1492210333@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If we're talking about making things easier to understand, wouldn't a
> random user rather know what a WAL "location" is instead of a WAL "LSN"?

I wouldn't object to standardizing on "location" instead of "lsn" in the
related function and column names. What I don't like is using different
words for the same thing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-04-14 23:37:49 Re: minor typo in client-auth.sgml
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-04-14 22:27:31 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()