| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DeArchiver process |
| Date: | 2011-11-02 16:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY0LqzYOiEWbYBZWd6q-bJqvV27OZ5S8mdf4NGPF6q9cA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Any standby can now become a sender node, so the meaning in that case
> would be the same. That takes a little time to get your head around,
> and I'm not used to it myself yet.
I think a new parameter will be more clear, even if in practice the
difference is fairly thin.
>>> Which do we prefer "DeArchiver", "Restore process", or "WALFileReceiver".
>>
>> My personal preference would be restore process, since we already use
>> the name restore_command.
>
> Restore process, with file called restore.c in src/backend/postmaster
> (or src/backend/replication?)
Yeah, that works. I'd go for postmaster over replication, for parallelism.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-02 17:20:52 | Re: DeArchiver process |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-11-02 16:42:51 | Re: DeArchiver process |