On 3/15/22 09:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 21.02.22 13:09, Euler Taveira wrote:
>> A new tool called pg_subscriber does this conversion and is tightly
>> integrated
>> with Postgres.
>
> Are we comfortable with the name pg_subscriber? It seems too general.
> Are we planning other subscriber-related operations in the future? If
> so, we should at least make this one use a --create option or
> something like that.
Not really sold on the name (and I didn't much like the name
pglogical_create_subscriber either, although it's a cool facility and
I'm happy to see us adopting something like it).
ISTM we should have a name that conveys that we are *converting* a
replica or equivalent to a subscriber.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com