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


Reply via email to