Re: rename pg_log_standby_snapshot
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: rename pg_log_standby_snapshot |
Дата | |
Msg-id | k3lob3be46rpjcyrqzbigrzhud3ghga5slv4jnajro77ofzkzh@4acqogszkplh обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: rename pg_log_standby_snapshot (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: rename pg_log_standby_snapshot
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2025-04-04 11:55:41 -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > > > > Should the pg_log_ prefix strictly refer to functions that write to > > > > logs? > > > > > > > > > > I don't know how strict we should be about this, > > > > I don't know as well and specially given that: > > > > - the snapshot is logged to the log file (if log level <= DEBUG2) > > But unlike pg_log_backend_memory_contexts, the primary purpose > of this function is not to write at the LOG message level. > > > - that name also makes sense from an API point of view as it calls "LogStandbySnapshot" > > I don't really see the correlation between the user facing pg_log_ > prefix and the Log prefixed > functions that write to wal. > > But this goes back to the main point of should pg_log_ be specific to > functions that > write to the server logs only. I am making the argument that we > should. We have a precedent > with pg_stat_ being the prefix for any function related to the cumulative stats. > > I think it keeps things nicely organized and just overall good code > hygiene, but also not sure > how we can even enforce such naming conventions. I think this would all be a nice argument to have when introducing a new function. But I don't think it's a wart sufficiently big to justify breaking compatibility. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: