From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DeArchiver process |
Date: | 2011-11-04 02:36:48 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFkhcwJbMgqmGQkUDoHOLxtC--9XpZXQ_t8669YFpRP-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 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".
+1 with this name and whole idea.
If we introduce "walrestore" process, pg_standby seems no longer useful.
We should get rid of it?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-11-04 04:20:31 | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-11-04 02:27:51 | Re: IDLE in transaction introspection |