Re: slotname vs slot_name

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: slotname vs slot_name
Date: 2014-06-05 01:57:58
Message-ID: CAHGQGwGEntM0Z7ocsn2ztDADuuU-PDZHFTvt=STbr-newB70RA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Due to the opened window of the pg_control/catalog version bump a chance
> has opened to fix a inconsistency I've recently been pointed
> towards:
> Namely that replication slots are named 'slot_name' in one half of the
> cases and 'slotname' in the other. That's in views, SRF columns,
> function parameters and the primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter.
>
> My personal tendency would be to make it slot_name everywhere except the
> primary_slotname recovery.conf parameter. There we already have
> precedent for shortening names.
>
> Other opinions?

I like using "slot_name" everywhere, i.e, even in recovery.conf.
primary_slot_name seems not so long name.

BTW, what about also renaming pg_llog directory? I'm afraid that
a user can confuse pg_log with pg_llog.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-06-05 02:07:33 Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses
Previous Message Haribabu Kommi 2014-06-05 01:28:29 Re: [HACKERS] BUG #9652: inet types don't support min/max