Hi, On 2023-01-25 14:05:39 -0500, Robert Haas 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.
I think it'd be just fine to keep the name as basic_archive and use it for both archiving and restoring. Restoring from an archive still deals with archiving. I agree that basic_wal_module isn't a good name. Greetings, Andres Freund
