On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their >> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO. >> > >> > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here. >> >> OK, sounds like we have consensus on that. Who wants to do it? > > Do we just need to replace all of them? If so, patch attached. > I replaced 3 terms: recovery_end_command, recovery-end-command, > and recoveryEndCommand.
s/recovery_end_command/restartpoint_command? I prefer restartpoint_command over archive_cleanup_command because not only restartpoint_command but also recovery_end_command is used for archive cleanup. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
