On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > 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".
+1 with this name and whole idea. If we introduce "walrestore" process, pg_standby seems no longer useful. We should get rid of it? 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
