From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_waldump's inclusion of backend headers is a mess |
Date: | 2017-02-14 12:56:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZrWybsoaOtuu2S71TcKqRxNvtAVTagfi_6eTGuas=2BA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>> You may want to name the new headers dedicated to WAL records with _xlog.h
>> as suffix though, like gin_xlog.h instead of ginxlog.h.
>
> Should not it be more consistent to use "*_wal.h", after all these efforts
> to move "xlog" to "wal" everywhere?
I believe that what was agreed was to eliminate "xlog" from
user-facing parts of the system, not internal details. If we're going
to eliminate it from the internals, we should do that in a systematic
way, not just in the parts that happen to be getting changed from by
some other patch. But personally I think that would be more trouble
than it's worth. It would severely complicate future back-patching --
even more than what we've done already -- for not a whole lot of gain.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-02-14 12:57:11 | Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT? |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-02-14 12:53:37 | Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines |