On 2017-01-26 14:05:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I completely understand that position. I have always been doubtful of
> the value of renaming pg_xlog to pg_wal, and I'm not any more
> dedicated to the idea now than I was when I committed that patch. But
> there was overwhelming support for it, consensus on a level rarely
> seen here.
I think that consistency was based on the change being a narrow
proposition, not a license to run around and change a lot of stuff
including the names of binary.
> I do not think it can be right to rename the directory and not
> anything else. I stand by what I wrote in
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmobeHP2qbtMvYxG2x8Pm_9utjRya-rom5XL4QuyA26c1Gg@mail.gmail.com
I'm tempted to quote Emerson ;). I don't think the naming of pg_xlog
vs. pg_wal doesn't actually have that large an impact, to change the
dynamics of the wal vs xlog dichotomy. Sure it's nothing you'd do in a
new program, but neither is it very bad.
Andres