Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays?

On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 03:30:48PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I suggested the current one because having the last was making the
> > column name bit longer, and anyway the description clarifies it, but I
> > see your point. So, the other options could be
> > slotsync_last_skip_time, sync_last_skip_time, last_slotsync_skip_time,
> > last_sync_skip_time .
>
> I also noticed while going through src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql
> that *_last_*_time is rare, so in terms of brevity, removing the _time
> at the end would be ok. "last_" already conveys time/a timestamp.
>

I think it depends on case to case but having last in the similar
cases seems to be a common practice. So, again thinking about it based
on your suggestion and looking at existing fields, I suggest we should
rename slotsync_skip_at to slotsync_last_skip. This is similar to
checksum_last_failure. I think there is a value in keeping initials
the same for similar fields in the view as users could easily identify
the related columns while querying the view. For example,
checksum_failures and checksum_last_failure in pg_stat_database.

Anyone else have any opinion on the names proposed here?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.