On 01/07/2015 01:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I also think it's a great idea. But I think we should consider the name
> carefully. pg_resync might be a better name. Strictly, you might not be
> quite rewinding, AIUI.
pg_resync sounds too generic. It's true that if the source server has
changes of its own, then it's more of a sideways movement than
rewinding, but I think it's nevertheless a good name.
It does always rewind the control file, so that after startup, WAL
replay begins from the last common point in history between the servers.
WAL replay will catch up with the source server, which might be ahead of
last common point, but strictly speaking pg_rewind is not involved at
that point anymore.
- Heikki
