On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 9:30 PM Sami Imseih <samims...@gmail.com> wrote: > > While looking at [1] which introduces a new function called pg_log_query_plan > to > write an explain plan to the log file, I noticed that we currently > have overloaded > the meaning of the "pg_log_" prefix. > > Currently there is pg_log_backend_memory_contexts which logs memory > contexts to the log file, but there is also a pg_log_standby_snapshot which > takes a snapshot of running transactions and writes them to wal, so it has > nothing to do with writing to the log file. > > List of functions > Schema | Name | Result data type | > Argument data types | Type > ------------+--------------------------------+------------------+---------------------+------ > pg_catalog | pg_log_backend_memory_contexts | boolean | > integer | func > pg_catalog | pg_log_standby_snapshot | pg_lsn | > | func > (3 rows) > > Should the pg_log_ prefix strictly refer to functions that write to > logs? >
I don't know how strict we should be about this, but your question has merit and deserves some bike-shedding because the user can get confused with the term *_log_* in the function name that intends to write a WAL record for standby_snapshot. > If so, should we rename > pg_log_standby_snapshot to something else, such as > pg_standby_snapshot_xip_to_wal? > The other option could be pg_create_standby_snapshot(), which would be similar to the existing function pg_create_restore_point(). I think we need to think about backward compatibility if we agree with moving in this direction. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
