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.
regards, tom lane