Robert, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On the topic of whether to also change the default, I'm not sure what > is best and will defer to others. On the topic of whether to whack > around the file naming scheme, -1 from me. This patch was posted > three months ago and nobody suggested that course of action until this > week. Even though it is on a related topic, it is a conceptually > separate change that is previously undiscussed and on which we do not > have agreement. Making those changes just before feature freeze isn't > fair to the patch authors or people who may not have time to pay > attention to this thread right this minute.
While I understand that you'd like to separate the concerns between changing the renaming scheme and changing the default and enabling this option, I don't agree that they can or should be independently considered. This is, in my view, basically the only opportunity we will have to change the naming scheme because once we make it an initdb option, while I don't think very many people will use it, there will be people who will and the various tool authors will also have to adjust to handle those cases. Chances are good that we will even see people start to recommend using that initdb option, leading to more people using a different default, at which point we simply are not going to be able to consider changing the nameing scheme. Therefore, I would much rather we take this opportunity to change the naming scheme and the default at the same time to be more sane, because if we have this patch as-is in PG10, we won't be able to do so in the future without a great deal more pain. I'm willing to forgo the ability to change the WAL size with just a server restart for PG10 because that's something which can clearly be added later without any concerns about backwards-compatibility, but the same is not true regarding the naming scheme. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
