On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 17:17, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 16:45, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> Do we envision pg_basebackup as something we will enahance, and if so, >> should we consider a generic name? > > Well, it's certainly going to be enhanced. I think there are two main > uses for it - backups, and setting up replication slaves. I can't see > it expanding beyond those, really.
I've committed this with the current name, pg_basebackup, before the bikeshed hits all the colors of the rainbow. If there's too much uproar, we can always rename it - it's a lot easier now that we have git :P Base backups is something we discuss regularly, so it's not a new term. And I don't see why people would be confused that this is a tool that you run on the client (which can be the same machine) - afte rall, we don't do pg_receive_dump, pg_receive_dumpall, pg_send_restore on those tools. -- 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
