Re: [HACKERS] Should pg_current_wal_location() becomepg_current_wal_lsn()

On 5/1/17 08:10, David Rowley wrote:
> On 20 April 2017 at 07:29, Euler Taveira <euler@timbira.com.br> wrote:
>> 2017-04-19 1:32 GMT-03:00 Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> I vote for "location" -> "lsn". I would expect complains about the
>>> current inconsistency at some point, and the function names have been
>>> already changed for this release..
> 
> OK, so I've created a draft patch which does this.

After reading this patch, I see that

a) The scope of the compatibility break is expanded significantly beyond
what was already affected by the xlog->wal renaming.

b) Generally, things read less nicely and look more complicated.

So I still think we'd be better off leaving things the way they are.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services