Re: PATCH: Add 'pid' column to pg_replication_slots

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
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 19:18:03
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaZhXjgjKw9vuPY5ihUsmNnB_9cmSgUi2bM0fcE_qivwA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> 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?

wfm

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2015-04-21 19:46:04 Reducing spinlock acquisition within clock sweep loop
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-04-21 19:17:34 Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts