| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots |
| Date: | 2015-04-21 14:54:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20150421145457.GC14708@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
I like it being called active_*, that makes the correlation to active
clear. active_pid then?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-21 14:57:45 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-21 14:53:08 | Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots |