On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:08 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There seems some muddling of names here:
> - "local" versus ? and "remote" versus "primary"; or sometimes the
> function does not give an indication.
> - "sync_slot" versus "synced_slot" versus nothing
> - "check" versus "validate"
> - etc.
>
> Below are some suggestions (some are unchanged); probably there are
> better ideas for names but my point is that the current names could be
> improved:
>
> CURRENT SUGGESTION
...
> drop_obsolete_slots drop_local_synced_slots
The new name doesn't convey the intent of the function. If we want to
have a difference based on remote/local slots then we can probably
name it as drop_local_obsolete_slots.
> reserve_wal_for_slot reserve_wal_for_local_slot
> local_slot_update update_local_synced_slot
> update_and_persist_slot update_and_persist_local_synced_slot
>
The new names sound better in the above cases as the current names
appear too generic.
> get_slot_invalidation_cause get_slot_conflict_reason
> synchronize_slots synchronize_remote_slots_to_local
> synchronize_one_slot synchronize_remote_slot_to_local
>
The new names don't sound like an improvement.
> validate_primary_slot check_remote_synced_slot_exists
> validate_slotsync_params check_local_config
>
In the above cases, the current name conveys the intent of function
whereas new names sound a bit generic. So, let's not change in this
case.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
