On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:17, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 16:45, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Do we envision pg_basebackup as something we will enahance, and if so,
>> should we consider a generic name?
>
> Well, it's certainly going to be enhanced. I think there are two main
> uses for it - backups, and setting up replication slaves. I can't see
> it expanding beyond those, really.
I've committed this with the current name, pg_basebackup, before the
bikeshed hits all the colors of the rainbow. If there's too much
uproar, we can always rename it - it's a lot easier now that we have
git :P
Base backups is something we discuss regularly, so it's not a new term.
And I don't see why people would be confused that this is a tool that
you run on the client (which can be the same machine) - afte rall, we
don't do pg_receive_dump, pg_receive_dumpall, pg_send_restore on those
tools.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
