Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 03:36:39AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> On 2 May 2017 at 00:10, David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 20 April 2017 at 07:29, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br> wrote:
> >> 2017-04-19 1:32 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>:
> >>>
> >>> 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..
> >
> > OK, so I've created a draft patch which does this.
> 
> I ended up adding this to the open items list.  I feel it's best to be
> on there so that we don't forget about this.
> 
> If we decide not to do it then we can just remove it from the list,
> but it would be a shame to release the beta having forgotten to make
> this change.
> 
> Do any of the committers who voted for this change feel inclined to
> pick this patch up?

I'll echo that question.  This open item lacks a clear owner.  One might argue
that 806091c caused it by doing the backward-compatibility breaks that
inspired this patch, but that's a link too tenuous to create ownership.