I agree.
(sorry again Tom... dang GMAIL should default reply to all.... grrrr!)
On 11/14/05, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rod Taylor <pg@xxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 23:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There's something in what you say. We'd have to rename pg_clog as well,
>> since that's even more critical than pg_xlog ...
> Rename them to pg_donttouchthis and pg_youneedthis.
:-)
On a more serious level: Tim's suggestion of "pg_wal" for pg_xlog sounds
fine to me. How about "pg_trans" for pg_clog, by analogy to the
existing pg_subtrans? Nothing else in the standard layout looks like
it's got a name that a newbie would think means discardable data.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
