On 01/07/2015 03:22 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 01/07/2015 01:54 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I also think it's a great idea. But I think we should consider the name
carefully. pg_resync might be a better name. Strictly, you might not be
quite rewinding, AIUI.
pg_resync sounds too generic. It's true that if the source server has
changes of its own, then it's more of a sideways movement than
rewinding, but I think it's nevertheless a good name.
It does always rewind the control file, so that after startup, WAL
replay begins from the last common point in history between the
servers. WAL replay will catch up with the source server, which might
be ahead of last common point, but strictly speaking pg_rewind is not
involved at that point anymore.
I understand, but I think "pg_rewind" is likely to be misleading to many
users who will say "but I don't want just to rewind".
I'm not wedded to the name I suggested, but I think we should look at
possible alternative names. We do have experience of misleading names
causing confusion (e.g. "initdb").
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers