RE: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column topg_stat_replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From myungkyu.lim
Subject RE: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column topg_stat_replication
Date
Msg-id 010201d4854b$ae87e510$0b97af30$@samsung.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column topg_stat_replication  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [Todo item] Add entry creation timestamp column topg_stat_replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:27 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> Good point. 'last_reply_send_time' is better.
>> How about just 'reply_time'?
>
>Please note that the original thread has mentioned reply_timestamp as a
>consensus:

So I selected 'reply_time' because 'timestamp' was not used in stat field.

>On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:33:26PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Yeah, I also agree with 'reply_time'. But please also note that we had
>> the discussion when there is not the similar system catalogs and
>> fields. Now that we have them it might be worth to consider to follow
>> the existing name for consistency.
>
>The fields in pg_stat_wal_receiver are named after their respective fields.
>Now if you look at the fields from pg_stat_replication, you have those from
>the standby:
>sent_lsn => Last write-ahead log location sent on this connection write_lsn
>=> Last write-ahead log location written to disk by this standby server
>flush_lsn => Last write-ahead log location flushed to disk by this standby
>server replay_lsn => Last write-ahead log location replayed into the
>database on this standby server
>
>So to keep the brand consistent, reply_time looks like the best choice as
>Sawada-san suggests?

I agree.
The fields naming in pg_stat_replication are some different from other views
fields.
Not used 'last_' or 'latest_' prefix in fields.

Best regards,
Myungkyu, Lim



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: Inadequate executor locking of indexes