From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | slotname vs slot_name |
Date: | 2014-06-04 23:24:14 |
Message-ID: | 20140604232414.GO785@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-06-04 23:25:37 | Re: btree_gist valgrind warnings about uninitialized memory |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-06-04 23:23:14 | Re: Sigh, we need an initdb |