On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:50 PM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:35:50PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > How about something like LOG_AS_CLONE? That makes it clear, I hope, > > that we're logging it a different way, but that method of logging it > > is different in each case. You'd still have to read the documentation > > to find out what it really means, but at least it seems like it points > > you more in the right direction. To me, anyway. > > I think CLONE would be confusing since we don't use that term often, > maybe LOG_DB_COPY or LOG_FILE_COPY?
Yeah, maybe. But it's not clear to me with that kind of naming whether TRUE or FALSE would be the existing behavior? One version logs a single record for the whole database, and the other logs a record per database block. Neither version logs per file. LOG_COPIED_BLOCKS, maybe? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
