Horton

Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@berkus.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov@google.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia.shang@crunchydata.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-02-09T20:42:47Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
* Josh Berkus (josh@berkus.org) wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 11:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Agreed, let's just get it done.
> > 
> > Although this doesn't really settle whether we ought to do 3a (with
> > backwards-compatibility function aliases in core) or 3b (without 'em).
> > Do people want to re-vote, understanding that those are the remaining
> > choices?
> 
> Does 3a) mean keeping the aliases more-or-less forever?
> 
> If not, I vote for 3b.  If we're going to need to break stuff, let's
> just do it.
> 
> If we can keep the aliases for 6-10 years, then I see no reason not to
> have them (3a).  They're not exactly likely to conflict with user-chosen
> names.

When we remove pg_shadow, then I'll be willing to agree that maybe we
can start having things in PG for a couple releases that are just for
backwards-compatibility and will actually be removed later.

History has shown that's next to impossible, however.

Thanks!

Stephen

Commits

  1. Remove all references to "xlog" from SQL-callable functions in pg_proc.

  2. Replace pg_shadow and pg_group by new role-capable catalogs pg_authid