Re: Rename sync_error_count to tbl_sync_error_count in subscription statistics

From: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amitkapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Rename sync_error_count to tbl_sync_error_count in subscription statistics
Date: 2025-11-12 07:32:19
Message-ID: CABPTF7WMgF3aY0TcLhA-gH0VJuZMs262s8kJ1rUGtdHnRikGZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 1:04 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 9:54 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch proposes renaming a column in the view
> > pg_stat_subscription_stats to disambiguate between table sync and
> > sequence sync error counts. With the introduction of
> > seq_sync_error_count, the existing column name sync_error_count
> > becomes ambiguous, it's unclear whether it refers to tables,
> > sequences, or both. Renaming it to tbl_sync_error_count makes the
> > meaning explicit: it represents errors that occurred during table
> > synchronization. This helps users avoid confusion when interpreting
> > the view's output.

Thanks for the patch.

> +1 on the intent. It will definitely help avoid confusion in the names.
>
> I’m slightly leaning toward using 'table_sync_error_count' instead of
> 'tbl_sync_error_count'. The name 'table_sync_error_count' isn’t too
> long and should work fine, while 'tbl_..' feels more like an internal
> variable name. But I would like to see what others prefer here.
>
> thanks
> Shveta
>
>

+1 for using table_sync_error_count as the user-facing column name —
it’s clearer and consistent with existing catalog naming.
Do we need to bump CATALOG_VERSION_NO for this update?

--
Best,
Xuneng

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-11-12 07:42:07 Re: SQL:2011 Application Time Update & Delete
Previous Message Alexander Kukushkin 2025-11-12 07:28:15 Re: Issue with logical replication slot during switchover