On 27.03.20 21:12, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32:25PM +0100, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>>>> + <glossterm>Archiver</glossterm>
>>> Can you change that to archiver process ?
>> I prefer the short term without the addition of 'process' - concerning
>> 'Archiver' as well as the other cases. But I'm not an native English
>> speaker.
> I didn't like it due to lack of context.
>
> What about "wal archiver" ?
>
> It occured to me when I read this.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200327.163007.128069746774242774.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com
>
"WAL archiver" is ok for me. In the current documentation we have 2
places with "WAL archiver" and 4 with "archiver"-only
(high-availability.sgml, monitoring.sgml).
"backend process" is an exception to the other terms because the
standalone term "backend" is sensibly used in diverse situations.
Kind regards, Jürgen