Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1+H5aaL_z6FStskGQ8NEAjTk7d+1s=s_iwa+aTtWZopjg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:37 PM David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:19 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:18 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: >> >> > > The view name could be pg_stat_subscription_lrep, >> > > pg_stat_logical_replication, or something on those lines. >> > >> > pg_stat_subscription_stats :) >> > >> >> Having *stat* two times in the name sounds slightly odd to me but let >> us see what others think. One more option could be >> pg_stat_subscription_replication. >> > > Agreed. > > pg_stat_subscription_activity > > We already have pg_stat_activity (which may be an argument against the suggestion...) > I don't know if that can be an argument against it but one can imagine that we record other subscription changes like (change of publications, etc.). I personally feel it may be better to add '_replication' in some way like pg_stat_sub_replication_activity but I am fine either way. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: