Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 1:37 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Looking at the V29 style tablesync slot names now they appear like this:
>
> WARNING: could not drop tablesync replication slot
> "pg_16397_sync_16389_6927117142022745645"
> That is in the order subid + relid + sysid
>
> Now that I see it in a message it seems a bit strange with the sysid
> just tacked onto the end like that.
>
> I am wondering if reordering of parent to child might be more natural.
> e.g sysid + subid + relid gives a more intuitive name IMO.
>
> So in this example it would be "pg_sync_6927117142022745645_16397_16389"
>

I have kept the order based on the importance of each parameter. Say
when the user sees this message in the server log of the subscriber
either for the purpose of tracking the origins progress or for errors,
the sysid parameter won't be of much use and they will be mostly
looking at subid and relid. OTOH, if due to some reason this parameter
appears in the publisher logs then sysid might be helpful.

Petr, anyone else, do you have any opinion on this matter?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.