| From: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays? |
| Date: | 2025-11-28 09:15:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20251128091552.GB13635@p46.dedyn.io;lightning.p46.dedyn.io |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 11:00:36AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> 2)
> + s.slotsync_skip_count,
> + s.last_slotsync_skip_at,
>
> Shall we rename last_slotsync_skip_at to slotsync_last_skip_at. That
> way all slotsync related stats columns will have same prefix.
I am not sure that was a great change. AFAICT, we only have _at once in
the catalog, and that if for two_phase_at. There, AIUI, it marks the
specific timestamp two_phase was enabled(?) for logical replication, not
the last time something happened.
So I think using _at here as well is confusing as this one is about the
last time a slotsync was skipped. I think it should be renamed to
'last', as per our usual naming.
I agree that having the same prefix would be nice, but it looks like
almost all other columns are named last_something (except for
checksum_last_failure, but that's been around for a long time).
So I suggest to reopen the discussion about naming this (second) column.
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-11-28 09:18:28 | Re: Migrate to autoconf 2.72? |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2025-11-28 09:11:04 | Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1 |