From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 16:26:36 |
Message-ID: | 20150421162636.GE6924@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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?
Let's call it active_procpid. (Runs for cover!)
----
(For background, see 9.2 release note item:
Rename pg_stat_activity.procpid to pid, to match other system tables (Magnus
Hagander)
The 'p' in 'pid' stands for 'proc', so 'procpid' is redundant.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-21 18:08:00 | Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-04-21 15:58:05 | Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT IGNORE (and UPDATE) 3.0 |