| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |
| Date: | 2021-11-18 17:24:14 |
| Message-ID: | 2923614.1637256254@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 11:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, given current usage it would be better to call it the "recovery
>> process". However, I'm feeling dubious that it's worth the cost to
>> change. The "startup" name is embedded in a lot of places, I think,
>> and people are used to it. I fear changing it would create more
>> confusion than it removes.
> What sorts of places are you thinking about?
Aside from our own code, I imagine a lot of people have monitoring
scripts that know about it.
> As far as being used to it, I think hackers are, but regular users are
> very much not.
Being hackers ourselves, I'm not sure we're qualified to opine on
that. I cannot say that I've noticed any questions about it on
the mailing lists, though.
Personally I think making a glossary entry that explains what the
process does would be a better plan than renaming it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikael Kjellström | 2021-11-18 17:24:36 | Re: Mixing CC and a different CLANG seems like a bad idea |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-18 17:08:18 | Re: Should rename "startup process" to something else? |