On Thu, Mar 23, 2023, at 2:33 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> On 2023-Mar-22, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I see that you have modified the patch to address the comments from
> > Alvaro. Personally, I feel it would be better to add such a message at
> > a centralized location instead of spreading these in different callers
> > of slot acquire/release functionality to avoid getting these missed in
> > the new callers in the future. However, if Alvaro and others think
> > that the current style is better then we should go ahead and do it
> > that way. I hope that we should be able to decide on this and get it
> > into PG16. Anyone else would like to weigh in here?
>
> I like Peter Smith's suggestion downthread.
+1. Please review the attached v8 patch further.
If you are adding separate functions as suggested, you should add a comment at
the top of ReplicationSlotAcquire() and ReplicationSlotRelease() functions
saying that LogReplicationSlotAquired() and LogReplicationSlotReleased()
functions should be called respectively after it.
My suggestion is that the functions should have the same name with a "Log"
prefix. On of them has a typo "Aquired" in its name. Hence,
LogReplicationSlotAcquire() and LogReplicationSlotRelease() as names. It is
easier to find if someone is grepping by the origin function.
I prefer a sentence that includes a verb.
physical replication slot \"%s\" is acquired
logical replication slot \"%s\" is released
Isn't the PID important for this use case? If so, of course, you can rely on
log_line_prefix (%p) but if the PID is crucial for an investigation then it
should also be included in the message.
