Re: pgsql: Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:25:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Would "released_time" sounds better? (at the end this is exactly what it does
> > represent unless for the case where it is restored from disk for which the meaning
> > would still makes sense to me though). It seems to me that released_time does not
> > lead to any expectation then removing any confusion.
>
> Yeah, that's not bad. I mean, I don't agree that released_time doesn't
> lead to any expectation,
> but what it leads me to expect is that you're
> going to tell me the time at which the slot was released. So if it's
> currently active, then I see NULL, because it's not released; but if
> it's inactive, then I see the time at which it became so.
>
> In the same vein, I think deactivated_at or inactive_since might be
> good names to consider. I think they get at the same thing as
> released_time, but they avoid introducing a completely new word
> (release, as opposed to active/inactive).
>

Yeah, I'd vote for inactive_since then.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com