On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 02:05:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 1:17 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> I wanted to merge basic_archive and basic_recovery because there's a decent >> chunk of duplicated code. Perhaps that is okay, but I would rather just >> have one test module. AFAICT the biggest reason to split it is because we >> can't determine a good name. Maybe we could leave the name as >> "basic_archive" since it deals with creating and recovering archive files. > > Yeah, maybe. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but if I see a > module called basic_archive or basic_restore, I know what it's about, > whereas basic_wal_module seems a lot less specific. It sounds like it > could be generating or streaming it just as easily as it could be > archiving it. It would be nice to have a name that is less prone to > that kind of unclarity.
Good point. It seems like the most straightforward approach is just to have separate modules. Unless Michael objects, I'll go that route. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
