Re: Consistent coding for the naming of LR workers

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Consistent coding for the naming of LR workers
Date: 2023-07-13 11:27:33
Message-ID: ab51467c-2102-6135-1da2-681ff59f3455@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13.07.23 11:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2023-Jul-13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> I suppose we could just say "logical replication worker" in all cases. That
>> should be enough precision for the purpose of these messages.
>
> Agreed. IMO the user doesn't care about specifics.

Ok, committed.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2023-07-13 11:29:45 Re: Better help output for pgbench -I init_steps
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2023-07-13 09:30:19 Re: Configurable FP_LOCK_SLOTS_PER_BACKEND