RE: Function for listing archive_status directory

From: "Iwata, Aya" <iwata(dot)aya(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Christoph Moench-Tegeder' <cmt(at)burggraben(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Function for listing archive_status directory
Date: 2018-10-09 00:51:34
Message-ID: 71E660EB361DF14299875B198D4CE5423DE5EA36@g01jpexmbkw25
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Christoph,

> > All similar function are named pg_ls_***dir. It is clear these
> > functions return directory contents information.
> > If the new function intends to display the contents of the directory,
> > pg_ls_***dir style might be better (e.g. pg_ls_archive_statusdir).
> > But everyone know archive_status is a directory...
> > If you want to follow the standard naming, then you may add the dir.
>
> I conciously omitted the "_dir" suffix - I'm not a great fan of long function
> names, and we want to inspect the contents of archive_status to find out about
> the status of the archiving process. But then, my main concern is the
> functionality, not the name, we can easily change the name. Is there any other
> opinion pro/contra the name?

I understand the reason why you have decided that name. And I agree with your opinion.

This function is useful for knowing about the status of archive log.
I didn't find any problems with the patch, so I'm marking it as "Ready for Committer".

Regards,
Aya Iwata

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-10-09 00:53:29 Re: DSM segment handle generation in background workers
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2018-10-09 00:49:44 Re: Partial index plan/cardinality costing