Horton

Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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: 2017-04-19T04:32:48Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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..
-- 
Michael

Commits

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