On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr> writes:
>> The only part of your proposal that I don't like is the process name,
>> that "deArchiver" thing. "wal restore process" or something like that
>> would be better. We already have "wal writer process" and "wal sender
>> process" and "wal receiver process".
>
> +1, "restore" seems pretty vague in this context.
Yeh, walrestore seems more natural than just "restore".
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services