Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:27, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:18, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Hmm. I don't like those names at all :( > >> > > >> > I agree. ?I don't think your original names are bad, as long as > >> > they're well-documented. ?I sympathize with Simon's desire to make it > >> > clear that these use the replication framework, but I really don't > >> > want the command names to be that long. > >> > >> Actually, after some IM chats, I think pg_streamrecv should be > >> renamed, probably to pg_walstream (or pg_logstream, but pg_walstream > >> is a lot more specific than that) > > > > pg_stream_log > > pg_stream_backup > > Those seem better. > > Tom, would those solve your concerns about it being clear which side > they are on? Or do you think you'd still risk reading them as the > sending side?
It seems pg_create_backup would be the most natural because we already have pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
