On 4/15/17 12:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> If we're talking about making things easier to understand, wouldn't a >>> random user rather know what a WAL "location" is instead of a WAL "LSN"? >> I wouldn't object to standardizing on "location" instead of "lsn" in the >> related function and column names. What I don't like is using different >> words for the same thing. > The case mentioned in the subject of this thread has been using the > word "location" since time immemorial. It's true that we've already > renamed it (xlog -> wal) in this release, so if we want to standardize > on lsn, now's certainly the time to do it. I'm worried that > pg_current_wal_lsn() is an identifier composed almost entirely of > abbreviations and therefore possibly just as impenetrable as > qx_current_pfq_dnr(), but maybe we should assume that LSN is a term of > art with which knowledgeable users are required to be familiar, much > as we are doing for "WAL".
+1, and I'm in favor of using "lsn" wherever applicable. It seems to me that if a user calls a function (or queries a table) that returns an lsn then they should be aware of what an lsn is. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
