On 18.03.22 23:34, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On 3/15/22 09:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 21.02.22 13:09, Euler Taveira wrote:
>>> A new tool called pg_subscriber does this conversion and is tightly
>>> integrated
>>> with Postgres.
>>
>> Are we comfortable with the name pg_subscriber? It seems too general.
>> Are we planning other subscriber-related operations in the future? If
>> so, we should at least make this one use a --create option or
>> something like that.
>
>
> Not really sold on the name (and I didn't much like the name
> pglogical_create_subscriber either, although it's a cool facility and
> I'm happy to see us adopting something like it).
>
> ISTM we should have a name that conveys that we are *converting* a
> replica or equivalent to a subscriber.
The pglogical tool includes the pg_basebackup run, so it actually
"creates" the subscriber from scratch. Whether this tool is also doing
that is still being discussed.
