On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Dimitri Fontaine <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> writes: >> The only part of your proposal that I don't like is the process name, >> that "deArchiver" thing. "wal restore process" or something like that >> would be better. We already have "wal writer process" and "wal sender >> process" and "wal receiver process". > > +1, "restore" seems pretty vague in this context.
Yeh, walrestore seems more natural than just "restore". -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
