Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From shveta malik
Subject Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Date
Msg-id CAJpy0uDm5MWMD1XNFh9as0jSmjKQcPvv-9W7WHcYVh4uUEbg-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 4:29 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > 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.

Sure, made the suggested function name changes. Since there is no
other change, I kept the version as v80_2.

thanks
Shveta

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Next
From: Pavel Luzanov
Date:
Subject: Re: Psql meta-command conninfo+