Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

From: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?
Date: 2021-02-09 08:07:34
Message-ID: CAHut+PsfWPkTcpZaMw_3cn2bPsfKRn_BwvMp=3pWkRO5Kd9TzQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Looking at the V29 style tablesync slot names now they appear like this:

WARNING: could not drop tablesync replication slot
"pg_16397_sync_16389_6927117142022745645"
That is in the order subid + relid + sysid

Now that I see it in a message it seems a bit strange with the sysid
just tacked onto the end like that.

I am wondering if reordering of parent to child might be more natural.
e.g sysid + subid + relid gives a more intuitive name IMO.

So in this example it would be "pg_sync_6927117142022745645_16397_16389"

Thoughts?

----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com 2021-02-09 08:10:19 RE: libpq debug log
Previous Message tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com 2021-02-09 07:47:05 RE: [POC] Fast COPY FROM command for the table with foreign partitions