Re: pg_waldump's inclusion of backend headers is a mess

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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