Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
Date: 2016-10-20 18:09:31
Message-ID: 22673.1476986971@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Is pg_xact actually better than pg_clog?

Yes, because it doesn't contain the three letters "log".

We have the two precedents "pg_subtrans" and "pg_multixact", so
unless we want to get into renaming those too, I think "pg_trans"
and "pg_xact" are really the only options worth considering.

Personally I'd go for "pg_trans", but it's only a weak preference.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-10-20 18:15:03 Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-10-20 18:02:27 Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog