Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
Date: 2022-02-21 05:08:51
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LxEwP=kr_t3TPxHjXcd+TzyhnHruNj22kXHqYJEePDdA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 10:07 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>
> I also still think that _worker shouldn't be part of any of the naming
> here.
>

Okay, the other options that comes to mind for this are:
pg_subscription_replication_error, or
pg_subscription_lreplication_error, or pg_subscription_lrep_error? We
can use similar naming at another place (view) if required.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2022-02-21 05:10:09 Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
Previous Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-02-21 03:56:46 Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats