Horton

Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-04-14T22:52:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.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.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Rename WAL-related functions and views to use "lsn" not "location".