| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots |
| Date: | 2015-04-21 14:53:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY+nRAjYZU2nobxddPV_=i9c2D60C34NOonTb8gzgefOg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About
>> naming it 'active_in' or such?
>
> It was originally named active_pid, but changed based on feedback from
> others that 'pid' would be consistent with pg_stat_activity and
> pg_replication_slots. I have no strong opinion on the name, though I'd
> prefer it reflect that the field does in fact represent a process ID.
Agreed. I don't like the as-committed name of active_in either. It's
not at all clear what that means.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-21 14:54:57 | Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-04-21 13:38:57 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |