Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:59 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 03:30:48PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > I suggested the current one because having the last was making the
> > > column name bit longer, and anyway the description clarifies it, but I
> > > see your point. So, the other options could be
> > > slotsync_last_skip_time, sync_last_skip_time, last_slotsync_skip_time,
> > > last_sync_skip_time .
> >
> > I also noticed while going through src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql
> > that *_last_*_time is rare, so in terms of brevity, removing the _time
> > at the end would be ok. "last_" already conveys time/a timestamp.
> >
>
> I think it depends on case to case but having last in the similar
> cases seems to be a common practice. So, again thinking about it based
> on your suggestion and looking at existing fields, I suggest we should
> rename slotsync_skip_at to slotsync_last_skip. This is similar to
> checksum_last_failure. I think there is a value in keeping initials
> the same for similar fields in the view as users could easily identify
> the related columns while querying the view. For example,
> checksum_failures and checksum_last_failure in pg_stat_database.
>
> Anyone else have any opinion on the names proposed here?

IMHO keeping it 'slotsync_last_skip' makes more sense, so that we can
keep the *slotsync* prefix and the naming style also match with some
other usage e.g. 'checksum_last_failure' as well.  I see there are
more common examples where the name starts with 'last_' but I prefer
the 'slotsync_last_skip' name.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google