Andres Freund escribió:
> On 2013-09-23 13:47:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I had proposed pg_recvlogical
>
> I still find it wierd/inconsistent to have:
> * pg_receivexlog
> * pg_recvlogical
> binaries, even from the same source directory. Why once "pg_recv" and
> once "pg_receive"?
Well. What are the principles we want to follow when choosing a name?
Is consistency the first and foremost consideration? To me, that names
are exactly consistent is not all that relevant; I prefer a shorter name
if it embodies all it means. For that reason I didn't like the
"receiveloglog" suggestion: it's not clear what are the two "log" bits.
To me this suggests that "logical" should not be shortened. But the
"recv" thing is clear to be "receive", isn't it? Enough that it can be
shortened without loss of meaning.
If we consider consistency in naming of tools is uber-important, well,
obviously my proposal is dead.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services