On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I'm mostly with Stephen on this. As the names stand, they encourage
> people to go look at the documentation,
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/storage-file-layout.html
> which will provide more information than you'd ever get out of any
> reasonable directory name.
Well, we could change them all to pg_a, pg_b, pg_c, pg_d, ... which
would encourage that even more strongly. But I don't think that
proposal can be taken seriously. Giving things meaningful names is a
good practice in almost every case.
> Having said that, I still don't like "pg_logical", but I suppose
> renaming it would have more downsides than upsides.
Remind me what your beef is?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company