From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots |
Date: | 2015-04-21 19:18:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaZhXjgjKw9vuPY5ihUsmNnB_9cmSgUi2bM0fcE_qivwA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
>> >> naming it 'active_in' or such?
>> >
>> > It was originally named active_pid, but changed based on feedback from
>> > others that 'pid' would be consistent with pg_stat_activity and
>> > pg_replication_slots. I have no strong opinion on the name, though I'd
>> > prefer it reflect that the field does in fact represent a process ID.
>>
>> Agreed. I don't like the as-committed name of active_in either. It's
>> not at all clear what that means.
>
> I like it being called active_*, that makes the correlation to active
> clear. active_pid then?
wfm
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-04-21 19:46:04 | Reducing spinlock acquisition within clock sweep loop |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-21 19:17:34 | Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts |