| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DeArchiver process |
| Date: | 2011-11-02 17:52:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJwk7rwyA-_skryGxu8TfSya_4WNUTVkHL9Lx6_vJdk8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Yeh, walrestore seems more natural than just "restore".
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-11-02 17:59:50 | Re: Core Extensions relocation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-02 17:20:52 | Re: DeArchiver process |