RE: pg_upgrade's object listing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade:
>
> >        pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\",
> two_phase: %s",
> >               slot_info->slotname,
> >               slot_info->plugin,
> >               slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false");
>
> If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought to be
> "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, should have a
> more natural spelling.
>
> What do you think about this?

Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will be an
improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as struct
field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks
OK to me.

[1]
        pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: \"%s\"",
               rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname,
               rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname,
               rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid,
               rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace);

Best Regards,
Hou zj