On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 1/26/16 10:56 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> What we should do is
>> 1. Map "archive" and "hot_standby" to one level with a new name that
>> indicates that it can be used for both/either backup or replication.
>> (My suggested name for the new level is "replica"...)
>
> I have been leaning toward making up a new name, too, but hadn't found a
> good one. I tend to like "replica", though.
"replica" sounds nice.
>> 2. Deprecate "archive" and "hot_standby" so that those will be removed
>> in a later release.
>
> If we do 1, then we might as well get rid of the old names right away.
+1.
--
Michael
