| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |
| Date: | 2021-11-18 20:22:41 |
| Message-ID: | 2972442.1637266961@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> If we change the name, and I support the idea that we do, I think a
> good name would be "wal replay". I think "recovery" is not great
> precisely because in a standby there is likely no crash that we're
> recovering from.
Fair point.
> The word "replay" is at odds with the other names,
> which stand for the device that carries out the task at hand
> (checkpointer, bgwriter, wal sender/receiver); but the word "replayer"
> seems to be extremely uncommon and IMO looks strange. If you see a
> process that claims to be "wal replay", you know perfectly well what it
> is.
I'm less concerned about the "er" than about the fact that the name is
two words. People will immediately shorten it to just "replay", eg
as a part of names in the code, and I feel that that's confusing in
its own way. Maybe we could run the words together, on the precedent
of "walreceiver", but I never much liked that name either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-11-18 20:42:57 | Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-11-18 20:14:41 | Re: xlog.c: removing ReadRecPtr and EndRecPtr |