| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add 'worker_type' to pg_stat_subscription |
| Date: | 2023-09-18 00:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PtGmSbU8WM=E8k9tXp0ny6e=2pAtXic_00GxYVRxf9TXA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
IIUC some future feature syncing of sequences is likely to share a lot
of the tablesync worker code (maybe it is only differentiated by the
relid being for a RELKIND_SEQUENCE?).
The original intent of this stats worker-type patch was to be able to
easily know the type of the process without having to dig through
other attributes (like relid etc.) to infer it. If you feel
differentiating kinds of syncing processes won't be of interest to
users then just generically calling it "synchronization" is fine by
me. OTOH, if users might care what 'kind' of syncing it is, perhaps
leaving the stats attribute as "table synchronization" (and some
future patch would add "sequence synchronization") is better.
TBH, I am not sure which option is best, so I am happy to go with the consensus.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2023-09-18 00:58:48 | Re: to_regtype() Raises Error |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-09-17 23:49:22 | Re: to_regtype() Raises Error |