Horton

Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: 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>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia.shang@crunchydata.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-02-03T21:39:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> * Daniel Verite (daniel@manitou-mail.org) wrote:
>> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle?
>> An example of confusion that the change would create:
>> a lot of users currently choose pg_wal for the destination
>> directory of their archive command. Less-informed users
>> that set up archiving and/or log shipping in PG10 based on
>> advice online from previous versions will be fairly
>> confused about the missing pg_xlog, and the fact that the
>> pg_wal directory they're supposed to create already exists.
>
> One would hope that they would realize that's not going to work
> when they set up PG10.  If they aren't paying attention sufficient
> to realize that then it seems entirely likely that they would feel
> equally safe removing the contents of a directory named 'pg_xlog'.

So... somebody want to tally up the votes here?

And... was this discussed at the FOSDEM developer meeting?

(Please say yes.)

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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