Re: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
Date: 2021-03-30 09:14:00
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+Hdk1R9hT=1DWH_utgcSPT+rkciUMM5jvMCmVVEbE1_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
>
> Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
>
> PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> same - "tablesync slots"
>

+1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
for users to understand.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-03-30 09:20:04 Re: Add Nullif case for eval_const_expressions_mutator
Previous Message Ajin Cherian 2021-03-30 09:12:57 Re: [PATCH] add concurrent_abort callback for output plugin