2011/1/18 Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>>>> 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's still totally unclear what they do. How about "pg_receive_log"
>> etc?
>
> I agree with whomever said using "wal" is better than "log" to be unambiguous.
>
> So it'd be pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_base_backup then? Votes from
> others? (it's easy to rename so far, so I'll keep plugging away under
> the name pg_basebackup based on Fujii-sans comments until such a time
> as we have a reasonable consensus :-)
pg_receive_wal is good for me.
pg_receive_base_backup in french base is a shortcut for database. here
we backup the whole cluster, I would suggest
pg_receive_cluster(_backup ?)
>
>
> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
