Horton

Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn()

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2017-04-19T03:36:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On 19 April 2017 at 15:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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".

Updated votes:

In favour of "location" -> "lsn": Tom, Stephen, David Steel
In favour of "lsn" -> "location": Peter, Kyotaro

-- 
 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Commits

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