On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Takahiro Itagaki
<itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> >> I prefer archive_cleanup_command. We should name things after their
>> >> principal function, not an implementation detail, IMNSHO.
>> >
>> > Weak preference for archive_cleanup_command here.
>>
>> OK, sounds like we have consensus on that. Who wants to do it?
>
> Do we just need to replace all of them? If so, patch attached.
> I replaced 3 terms: recovery_end_command, recovery-end-command,
> and recoveryEndCommand.
s/recovery_end_command/restartpoint_command?
I prefer restartpoint_command over archive_cleanup_command because
not only restartpoint_command but also recovery_end_command is used
for archive cleanup.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
