On 11/18/21 15:22, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >> If we change the name, and I support the idea that we do, I think a >> good name would be "wal replay". I think "recovery" is not great >> precisely because in a standby there is likely no crash that we're >> recovering from. > Fair point. > >> The word "replay" is at odds with the other names, >> which stand for the device that carries out the task at hand >> (checkpointer, bgwriter, wal sender/receiver); but the word "replayer" >> seems to be extremely uncommon and IMO looks strange. If you see a >> process that claims to be "wal replay", you know perfectly well what it >> is. > I'm less concerned about the "er" than about the fact that the name is > two words. People will immediately shorten it to just "replay", eg > as a part of names in the code, and I feel that that's confusing in > its own way. Maybe we could run the words together, on the precedent > of "walreceiver", but I never much liked that name either. > >
Maybe something along those lines but using a dash/hyphen would work: e.g. wal-replayer cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
