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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |