On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 21:48, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>> * pg_stat_replication
>>> * pg_stat_standby (not yet)
>>
>> Just to keep the bikeshedding up, should it in this case not be
>> pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby or such?
>> Replication applies to both master and slave...
>
> The reason I didn't use term "master" is that pg_stat_replication is
> information of *standby* servers on master server. Of course,
> wal senders are processes in the master, but users probably think
> they are the location standby servers receives.
To my way of thinking, pg_stat_walsender and pg_stat_walreceiver would
be more clear than pg_stat_replication_master and
pg_stat_replication_slave.
However, my way of thinking is of course not the only way of thinking.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
