Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:27, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> >> >> Hmm. I don't like those names at all :(
> >> >
> >> > I agree. ?I don't think your original names are bad, as long as
> >> > they're well-documented. ?I sympathize with Simon's desire to make it
> >> > clear that these use the replication framework, but I really don't
> >> > want the command names to be that long.
> >>
> >> Actually, after some IM chats, I think pg_streamrecv should be
> >> renamed, probably to pg_walstream (or pg_logstream, but pg_walstream
> >> is a lot more specific than that)
> >
> > pg_stream_log
> > pg_stream_backup
>
> Those seem better.
>
> Tom, would those solve your concerns about it being clear which side
> they are on? Or do you think you'd still risk reading them as the
> sending side?
It seems pg_create_backup would be the most natural because we already
have pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
