On 10/18/23 03:07, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 16.10.23 17:15, David Steele wrote:
I also do wonder with recovery_control is really a better name. Maybe
I just have backup_label too firmly stuck in my head, but is what that
file does really best described as recovery control? I'm not so sure
about that.
The thing it does that describes it as "recovery control" in my view
is that it contains the LSN where Postgres must start recovery (plus
TLI, backup method, etc.). There is some other informational stuff in
there, but the important fields are all about ensuring consistent
recovery.
At the end of the day the entire point of backup *is* recovery and
users will interact with this file primarily in recovery scenarios.
Maybe "restore" is better than "recovery", since recovery also happens
separate from backups, but restoring is something you do with a backup
(and there is also restore_command etc.).
I would not object to restore (there is restore_command) but I do think
of what PostgreSQL does as "recovery" as opposed to "restore", which
comes before the recovery. Recovery is used a lot in the docs and there
is also recovery.signal.
But based on the discussion in [1] I think we might be able to do away
with backup_label entirely, which would make this change moot.
Regards,
-David
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0f948866-7caf-0759-d53c-93c3e266ec3f%40pgmasters.net
