On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:27, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 16:20 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 16:18, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Hmm. I don't like those names at all :( >> >> > >> >> > I agree. ?I don't think your original names are bad, as long as >> >> > they're well-documented. ?I sympathize with Simon's desire to make it >> >> > clear that these use the replication framework, but I really don't >> >> > want the command names to be that long. >> >> >> >> 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 seems pg_create_backup would be the most natural because we already > have pg_start_backup and pg_stop_backup.
Uh, wow. That's really mixing apples and oranges. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
