On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 17:31, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.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/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
