On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:50 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > How about something like LOG_AS_CLONE? That makes it clear, I hope,
> > that we're logging it a different way, but that method of logging it
> > is different in each case. You'd still have to read the documentation
> > to find out what it really means, but at least it seems like it points
> > you more in the right direction. To me, anyway.
>
> I think CLONE would be confusing since we don't use that term often,
> maybe LOG_DB_COPY or LOG_FILE_COPY?
Yeah, maybe. But it's not clear to me with that kind of naming whether
TRUE or FALSE would be the existing behavior? One version logs a
single record for the whole database, and the other logs a record per
database block. Neither version logs per file. LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS,
maybe?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
