* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> There have been complaints that pg_receivexlog's name is not consistent
> >> with pg_recvlogical, and I seem to recall there were some votes for
> >> renaming pg_receivexlog to match. We could make it "pg_recvwal" now.
>
> > ... I would prefer not to go there.
>
> I agree. "pg_recvlogical" was a badly chosen name; let's not double
> down on the error.
>
> What I think might be worth considering is inserting underscores,
> eg "pg_receive_wal", anywhere that we are running the abbreviation
> directly against another word. We won't get another chance.
Wouldn't that make it 'pg_recv_wal'? Or were you referring to the 'wal'
as being the abbreviation? Or did you mean underscores between words in
general?
If we want to switch to using underscores to seperate words, then that
implies a whole lot of *additional* renaming that I'm not sure I can
really get behind...
initdb
pg_archivecleanup
pg_basebackup
pgbench
pg_controldata
pgevent (eh, not really a binary, but it's in src/bin)
pg_dumpall
pg_isready
All of those, to me at least seem fine, and I'd further be fine with
"pg_receivewal".
I haven't got any great answers wrt pg_recvlogical, though I don't
particullarly like the existing name, but that's more because I have
to ask myself how the heck one can receive a "logical"..
Then again 'pg_controldata' only works if you realize it's really
"pg_print_pg_control" or something. It's hardly controlling any data.
Thanks!
Stephen