On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 11:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Perhaps "fetching XXX" vs "restoring XXX"? > > > Not sure if I read you right, so one more time for clarity: > > > IMHO wording should be > > "restoring X" before we send to archive to get file (archive only) > > "recovering X" once we have the file (archive or not) > > Those two words seem close enough in meaning that most admins wouldn't > be clear on the difference.
OK, I see that. > I like "fetching" or "retrieving" for > the activity of getting a WAL segment from an archive, because in cases > where the activity takes long enough to be noticeable, it's probably > because you are physically getting the file from someplace else. > In the specific context of a warm standby machine, "waiting for" would > be the bon mot, but that would probably be inappropriate for other > contexts. "Waiting for" sounds best I think. It might be waiting for a manual tape mount for example, not just a warm standby. If the wait isn't very long it won't hardly notice anyway. > As for the second-phase activity, "recovering" is fine, or maybe > "processing"? Yes, Recovering is fine. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate