From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: set_ps_display during recovery |
Date: | 2007-09-30 15:16:15 |
Message-ID: | 5925.1191165375@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"?
> Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity:
> IMHO wording should be
> "restoring X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only)
> "recovering X" once we have the file (archive or not)
Those two words seem close enough in meaning that most admins wouldn't
be clear on the difference. I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for
the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases
where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably
because you are physically getting the file from someplace else.
In the specific context of a warm standby machine, "waiting for" would
be the bon mot, but that would probably be inappropriate for other
contexts.
As for the second-phase activity, "recovering" is fine, or maybe
"processing"?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-30 15:58:52 | Re: set_ps_display during recovery |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-09-30 14:52:38 | Re: set_ps_display during recovery |