On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:05:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:17 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wanted to merge basic_archive and basic_recovery because there's a decent
>> chunk of duplicated code. Perhaps that is okay, but I would rather just
>> have one test module. AFAICT the biggest reason to split it is because we
>> can't determine a good name. Maybe we could leave the name as
>> "basic_archive" since it deals with creating and recovering archive files.
>
> Yeah, maybe. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but if I see a
> module called basic_archive or basic_restore, I know what it's about,
> whereas basic_wal_module seems a lot less specific. It sounds like it
> could be generating or streaming it just as easily as it could be
> archiving it. It would be nice to have a name that is less prone to
> that kind of unclarity.
Good point. It seems like the most straightforward approach is just to
have separate modules. Unless Michael objects, I'll go that route.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
