| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |
| Date: | 2021-11-18 16:05:04 |
| Message-ID: | 2917842.1637251504@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> That's true, but those tasks are very brief. Nobody's going to get too
> confused by a "recovery" process that shows up for a few milliseconds
> when there's no recovery to be done. Having a "startup" process that
> sticks around forever on a standy, though, actually is confusing.
Yeah, given current usage it would be better to call it the "recovery
process". However, I'm feeling dubious that it's worth the cost to
change. The "startup" name is embedded in a lot of places, I think,
and people are used to it. I fear changing it would create more
confusion than it removes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-11-18 16:22:44 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-18 15:45:13 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |