Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: 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 22:27:31
Message-ID: 54d1d5fc-a8aa-b687-0d65-bd488d0e48ba@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/14/17 11:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yeah, this area is complex enough so any consistency we can add helps.

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"?

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-04-14 22:52:13 Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()
Previous Message Jaime Casanova 2017-04-14 22:26:45 minor typo in client-auth.sgml