Greetings, * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2018-Nov-29, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:10 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:04:12AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote: > > > > There's hundreds of other internal uses of xlog that were not touched > > > > either, only the user-facing parts were changed. > > > > > > I have heard of them ;) > > > Just wondering if this one is worth renaming as the variable is > > > isolated. It is not a big deal to do nothing though. > > > > Well, if we rename the user-visible part but not the internal part, > > then they don't match, which is odd. > > But we already did that when we renamed all the xlog to WAL terminology > ... why do we care about it now particularly?
I thought the idea was that we'd adjust things in the actual code as that code was refactored or adjusted for other reasons, to minimize the back-patching pain. That said, in this particular case that would mean just changing one variable when the other related ones aren't changed and I suspect that might just be more confusing than having this difference between the code and the user-messages. So, at least in this instance, my feeling is that we keep the variable as-is and just adjust the user message. When, down the road, there's a larger refactoring or change in this part of the code, that would be the time to change the code to refer to WAL instead of XLOG. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
