Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else?

On 11/18/21 15:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> If we change the name, and I support the idea that we do, I think a
>> good name would be "wal replay". I think "recovery" is not great
>> precisely because in a standby there is likely no crash that we're
>> recovering from.
> Fair point.
>
>> The word "replay" is at odds with the other names,
>> which stand for the device that carries out the task at hand
>> (checkpointer, bgwriter, wal sender/receiver); but the word "replayer"
>> seems to be extremely uncommon and IMO looks strange. If you see a
>> process that claims to be "wal replay", you know perfectly well what it
>> is.
> I'm less concerned about the "er" than about the fact that the name is
> two words. People will immediately shorten it to just "replay", eg
> as a part of names in the code, and I feel that that's confusing in
> its own way. Maybe we could run the words together, on the precedent
> of "walreceiver", but I never much liked that name either.
>
>

Maybe something along those lines but using a dash/hyphen would work:
e.g. wal-replayer

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com