On 01/07/2015 03:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> 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.
>
>
I understand, but I think "pg_rewind" is likely to be misleading to many
users who will say "but I don't want just to rewind".
I'm not wedded to the name I suggested, but I think we should look at
possible alternative names. We do have experience of misleading names
causing confusion (e.g. "initdb").
cheers
andrew
