| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add 'worker_type' to pg_stat_subscription |
| Date: | 2023-09-18 03:43:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JwYF-Xc55vZU2Lawdpo7C8nFdSwMYV7-Z0YEc4kZ4xbg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 17, 2023 at 2:10 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 06:09:48PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> This still leaves the possibility for confusion with the documentation's
> use of "leader apply worker", but I haven't touched that for now.
>
We may want to fix that separately but as you have raised here, I
found the following two places in docs which could be a bit confusing.
"Specifies maximum number of logical replication workers. This
includes leader apply workers, parallel apply workers, and table
synchronization"
""OID of the relation that the worker is synchronizing; NULL for the
leader apply worker and parallel apply workers"
One simple idea to reduce confusion could be to use (leader) in the
above two places. Do you see any other place which could be confusing
and what do you suggest to fix it?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2023-09-18 03:58:32 | Re: make add_paths_to_append_rel aware of startup cost |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2023-09-18 03:15:40 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |