| From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: walreceiver fallback_application_name |
| Date: | 2011-01-17 09:15:07 |
| Message-ID: | 2D9DEE1159C3B40BD8B3B24D@amenophis |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 16. Januar 2011 21:53:47 +0100 Dimitri Fontaine
<dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Is "walreceiver" something that "the average DBA" is going to realize
>> what it is? Perhaps go for something like "replication slave"?
>
> I think walreceiver is very good here, and the user is already
> confronted to such phrasing.
>
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/interactive/runtime-config-wal.html#GU
> C-MAX-WAL-SENDERS
Hmm, given this link we have mentioned "standby" multiple times. Wouldn't
it be better to follow that phrasing?
--
Thanks
Bernd
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-17 09:18:48 | Re: walreceiver fallback_application_name |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2011-01-17 09:03:57 | Re: Wildcard search support for pg_trgm |