Horton

Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: michael.paquier@gmail.com
Cc: david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david@pgmasters.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, bruce@momjian.us, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2017-04-19T08:30:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
At Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:32:48 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqR=jHB2Eh0r6bjcExsU_qkdWFyo23coxBt325aHmcSiuw@mail.gmail.com>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:36 PM, David Rowley
> <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > In favour of "location" -> "lsn": Tom, Stephen, David Steel
> > In favour of "lsn" -> "location": Peter, Kyotaro
> 
> I vote for "location" -> "lsn". I would expect complains about the
> current inconsistency at some point, and the function names have been
> already changed for this release..

I won't stick on "location" except that "pg_wal_lsn_diff" seems
no longer useful.

regards,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

Commits

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