| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia(dot)shang(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Date: | 2017-01-13 14:55:06 |
| Message-ID: | a406a2bf-378d-d0b4-f084-ea03c440b2f0@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/12/17 1:40 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I just don't buy this argument, at all. These functions names are
> certainly not the only things we're changing with PG10 and serious
> monitoring/backup/administration tools are almost certainly going to
> have quite a bit to adjust to with the new release, and that isn't news
> to anyone who works with PG.
I in turn don't buy this argument. ;-)
I have checked a variety of WAL-related monitoring scripts,
graphing/trending scripts, switchover/failover scripts, and the like,
and of course they all make ample use of a variety of *xlog* functions,
but as far as I can tell, they don't care about the pg_xlog renaming and
would continue to work just fine if the functions were not renamed.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-13 14:56:23 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Previous Message | Jonathon Nelson | 2017-01-13 14:47:06 | Re: Bug in Physical Replication Slots (at least 9.5)? |