| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots. |
| Date: | 2021-03-31 01:09:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PshrNajqwUN87rQ9WRGK+TzVgYcC5FXhQRv2515ig=TDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
> >
> > Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> > slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
> >
> > PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> > same - "tablesync slots"
> >
>
> +1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
> synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
> for users to understand.
>
PSA patch version 2 updated to use "table synchronization slots" as suggested.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Use-consistent-terminology-for-tablesync-slots.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-31 01:11:37 | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-03-31 01:01:45 | Re: Refactor SSL test framework to support multiple TLS libraries |