Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On 4/15/17 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
> The case mentioned in the subject of this thread has been using the
> word "location" since time immemorial. It's true that we've already
> renamed it (xlog -> wal) in this release, so if we want to standardize
> on lsn, now's certainly the time to do it. I'm worried that
> pg_current_wal_lsn() is an identifier composed almost entirely of
> abbreviations and therefore possibly just as impenetrable as
> qx_current_pfq_dnr(), but maybe we should assume that LSN is a term of
> art with which knowledgeable users are required to be familiar, much
> as we are doing for "WAL".

+1, and I'm in favor of using "lsn" wherever applicable. It seems to me
that if a user calls a function (or queries a table) that returns an lsn
then they should be aware of what an lsn is.

--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net