On 3/15/22 09:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 21.02.22 13:09, Euler Taveira wrote: >> A new tool called pg_subscriber does this conversion and is tightly >> integrated >> with Postgres. > > Are we comfortable with the name pg_subscriber? It seems too general. > Are we planning other subscriber-related operations in the future? If > so, we should at least make this one use a --create option or > something like that.
Not really sold on the name (and I didn't much like the name pglogical_create_subscriber either, although it's a cool facility and I'm happy to see us adopting something like it).
ISTM we should have a name that conveys that we are *converting* a replica or equivalent to a subscriber.
Some time ago I did a POC on it [1] and I used the name pg_create_subscriber
