Re: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:44 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.

+1 for the phrasing "tablesync slots" to "table synchronization slots"
as it is more readable. And also the user facing error message and guc
description i.e. "logical replication table synchronization worker for
subscription" and max_sync_workers_per_subscription respectively are
showing it that way.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com