Re: DeArchiver process

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: DeArchiver process
Date: 2011-11-02 17:20:52
Message-ID: 3110.1320254452@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> writes:
> The only part of your proposal that I don't like is the process name,
> that "deArchiver" thing. "wal restore process" or something like that
> would be better. We already have "wal writer process" and "wal sender
> process" and "wal receiver process".

+1, "restore" seems pretty vague in this context.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2011-11-02 17:52:52 Re: DeArchiver process
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-11-02 16:51:28 Re: DeArchiver process