From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
Date: | 2011-01-18 17:03:27 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTiko2ZN=BHD0+XSee_HdoyCyu=94EypUinPme69k@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>>> Actually, after some IM chats, I think pg_streamrecv should be
>>>> renamed, probably to pg_walstream (or pg_logstream, but pg_walstream
>>>> is a lot more specific than that)
>
>>> pg_stream_log
>>> pg_stream_backup
>
>> Those seem better.
>
>> Tom, would those solve your concerns about it being clear which side
>> they are on? Or do you think you'd still risk reading them as the
>> sending side?
>
> It's still totally unclear what they do. How about "pg_receive_log"
> etc?
I agree with whomever said using "wal" is better than "log" to be unambiguous.
So it'd be pg_receive_wal and pg_receive_base_backup then? Votes from
others? (it's easy to rename so far, so I'll keep plugging away under
the name pg_basebackup based on Fujii-sans comments until such a time
as we have a reasonable consensus :-)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2011-01-18 17:10:41 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-18 16:53:07 | Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW] |