Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoBgDd4tHN-gzvoznQ_JWNvkb1282+vhg6grQDsYLn1niw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:30 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:54 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com > <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > Here is another comment: > > > > +char * > > +logicalrep_message_type(LogicalRepMsgType action) > > +{ > > ... > > + case LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END: > > + return "STREAM END"; > > ... > > > > I think most the existing code use "STREAM STOP" to describe the > > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END message, is it better to return "STREAM STOP" in > > function logicalrep_message_type() too ? > > > > +1 > I think you're right, it should be "STREAM STOP" in that case. It's right that we use "STREAM STOP" rather than "STREAM END" in many places such as elog messages, a callback name, and source code comments. As far as I have found there are two places where we’re using "STREAM STOP": LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END and a description in doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml. Isn't it better to fix these inconsistencies in the first place? I think “STREAM STOP” would be more appropriate. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: