Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.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
