On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 21:48, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >>> * pg_stat_replication >>> * pg_stat_standby (not yet) >> >> Just to keep the bikeshedding up, should it in this case not be >> pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_standby or such? >> Replication applies to both master and slave... > > The reason I didn't use term "master" is that pg_stat_replication is > information of *standby* servers on master server. Of course, > wal senders are processes in the master, but users probably think > they are the location standby servers receives.
To my way of thinking, pg_stat_walsender and pg_stat_walreceiver would be more clear than pg_stat_replication_master and pg_stat_replication_slave. However, my way of thinking is of course not the only way of thinking. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
