On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:52 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
>>> The only part of your proposal that I don't like is the process name,
>>> that "deArchiver" thing. "wal restore process" or something like that
>>> would be better. We already have "wal writer process" and "wal sender
>>> process" and "wal receiver process".
>>
>> +1, "restore" seems pretty vague in this context.
>
> Yeh, walrestore seems more natural than just "restore".
+1 with this name and whole idea.
If we introduce "walrestore" process, pg_standby seems no longer useful.
We should get rid of it?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
