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: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-04-19T03:31:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> OK, so I've read over this thread again and I think it's time to
> summarise the votes:
> ...
> In favour of "location" -> "lsn": Stephen, David Steel,
> In favour of "lsn" -> "location": Peter, Tom, Kyotaro

FWIW, I was not voting in favor of "location"; I was just saying that
I wanted consistency.  If we're voting which way to move, please count
me as a vote for "lsn".

			regards, tom lane

Commits

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