Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1K8YfD-girg5upryTDm4dJ6U7pjPR2hX8cbM_g807MDXw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses RE: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats  ("osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com>)
Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 9:20 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>

I have reviewed the latest version and made a few changes along with
fixing some of the pending comments by Peter Smith. The changes are as
follows: (a) Removed m_databaseid in PgStat_MsgSubscriptionError as
that is not required now; (b) changed the struct name
PgStat_MsgSubscriptionPurge to PgStat_MsgSubscriptionDrop to make it
similar to DropDb; (c) changed the view name to
pg_stat_subscription_stats, we can reconsider it in future if there is
a consensus on some other name, accordingly changed the reset function
name to pg_stat_reset_subscription_stats; (d) moved some of the newly
added subscription stats functions adjacent to slots to main the
consistency in code; (e) changed comments at few places; (f) added
LATERAL back to system_views query as we refer pg_subscription's oid
in the function call, previously that was not clear.

Do let me know what you think of the attached?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding CI to our tree
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats