Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoBgDd4tHN-gzvoznQ_JWNvkb1282+vhg6grQDsYLn1niw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side  (Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:30 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 5:54 PM houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is another comment:
> >
> > +char *
> > +logicalrep_message_type(LogicalRepMsgType action)
> > +{
> > ...
> > +               case LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END:
> > +                       return "STREAM END";
> > ...
> >
> > I think most the existing code use "STREAM STOP" to describe the
> > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END message, is it better to return "STREAM STOP" in
> > function logicalrep_message_type() too ?
> >
>
> +1
> I think you're right, it should be "STREAM STOP" in that case.

It's right that we use "STREAM STOP" rather than "STREAM END" in many
places such as elog messages, a callback name, and source code
comments. As far as I have found there are two places where we’re
using "STREAM STOP": LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END and a description in
doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml. Isn't it better to fix these
inconsistencies in the first place? I think “STREAM STOP” would be
more appropriate.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Allow parallel DISTINCT
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: pgstat: Bring up pgstat in BaseInit() to fix uninitialized use o