Обсуждение: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.

Hi,

The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.

Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".

PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
same -  "tablesync slots"

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
>
> Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
>
> PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> same -  "tablesync slots"
>

+1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
for users to understand.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
> >
> > Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> > slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
> >
> > PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> > same -  "tablesync slots"
> >
>
> +1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
> synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
> for users to understand.

+1 for the phrasing "tablesync slots" to "table synchronization slots"
as it is more readable. And also the user facing error message and guc
description i.e. "logical replication table synchronization worker for
subscription" and max_sync_workers_per_subscription respectively are
showing it that way.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
> >
> > Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> > slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
> >
> > PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> > same -  "tablesync slots"
> >
>
> +1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
> synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
> for users to understand.
>

PSA patch version 2 updated to use "table synchronization slots" as suggested.

------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:39 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots.
> > >
> > > Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync
> > > slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots".
> > >
> > > PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the
> > > same -  "tablesync slots"
> > >
> >
> > +1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table
> > synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier
> > for users to understand.
> >
>
> PSA patch version 2 updated to use "table synchronization slots" as suggested.
>

Thanks, Pushed!

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.