Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

From: Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "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: 2017-05-12 02:25:41
Message-ID: CAFO0U+-NB3bP8qrjbJwAo9quU0979n+3xU4Fy-Cyx=-436MZrg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Neha Khatri <nehakhatri5(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > [In case forgotten] pg_controdata and pg_waldump interfaces should also
> be
> > considered for this standardization.
>
> > Following are pg_controldata interfaces that might require change:
>
> > Latest checkpoint location:
> > Prior checkpoint location:
> > Latest checkpoint's REDO location:
> > Minimum recovery ending location:
> > Backup start location:
> > Backup end location:
>
> My inclination is to leave these messages alone. They're not really
> inconsistent with anything. Where we seem to be ending up is that
> "lsn" will be used in things like function and column names, but
> documentation will continue to spell out phrases like "WAL location".
>
> There is another open thread about converting said phrases to be
> more consistent --- a lot of them currently say "transaction log
> location", which is not a very good choice because it invites
> confusion with pg_xact nee pg_clog. But I think that's mostly
> just documentation changes, and in any case it's better done as
> a separate patch.
>
>
Are you indicating that the above phrases do not require change because
those are consistent with other references. Or the other thread [1]
(renaming 'transaction log') should take care of it.

Regards,
Neha

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/89ba433e-8990-0aad-238f-55e1d7280ece%402ndquadrant.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-05-12 02:38:11 Re: [POC] hash partitioning
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2017-05-12 02:24:08 Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table