Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E7A16E7.5070703@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Robert, > Josh is arguing that we ought to use the term "replication", but it Actually, no. I'm arguing that we should use the term "standby", since that term is consistent with how we refer to replica servers throughout the docs, and the term "recovery" is not. > seems to me that's just as misleading - maybe moreso, since "recovery" > is sufficiently a term of art to make you at least think about reading > the manual, whereas you know (or think you know) what replication is. Nope. What it means is that users see stuff relating to "recovery" and say "oh, that's not right, the replication stuff must be somewhere else". I've taught a half-dozen classes on PostgreSQL binary replication now, and the "recovery" nomenclature *always* confuses students. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: