Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org

Date: 2011-09-21T16:55:03Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Restructure error handling in reading of postgresql.conf.
- d56b3afc0376 9.2.0 cited

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