RE: Collect statistics about conflicts in logical replication

On Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:18 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:59 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:43 AM shveta malik
> <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the patch. Just thinking out loud, since we have names
> > > > like 'apply_error_count', 'sync_error_count' which tells that they
> > > > are actually error-count, will it be better to have something
> > > > similar in conflict-count cases, like
> > > > 'insert_exists_conflict_count', 'delete_missing_conflict_count' and so
> on. Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would be better to have conflict in the names but OTOH it will
> > > make the names a bit longer. The other alternatives could be (a)
> > > insert_exists_confl_count, etc. (b) confl_insert_exists_count, etc.
> > > (c) confl_insert_exists, etc. These are based on the column names in
> > > the existing view pg_stat_database_conflicts [1]. The (c) looks
> > > better than other options but it will make the conflict-related
> > > columns different from error-related columns.
> > >
> > > Yet another option is to have a different view like
> > > pg_stat_subscription_conflicts but that sounds like going too far.
>
> Yes, I think we are good with pg_stat_subscription_stats for the time being.
>
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > >
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORI
> > > NG-PG-STAT-DATABASE-CONFLICTS-VIEW
> >
> > Option (c) looked good to me.
>
> +1 for option c. it should be okay to not have '_count' in the name.

Agreed. Here is new version patch which change the names as suggested. I also
rebased the patch based on another renaming commit 640178c9.

Best Regards,
Hou zj