On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 12:08 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There seems some muddling of names here: > - "local" versus ? and "remote" versus "primary"; or sometimes the > function does not give an indication. > - "sync_slot" versus "synced_slot" versus nothing > - "check" versus "validate" > - etc. > > Below are some suggestions (some are unchanged); probably there are > better ideas for names but my point is that the current names could be > improved: > > CURRENT SUGGESTION ... > 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. > get_slot_invalidation_cause get_slot_conflict_reason > synchronize_slots synchronize_remote_slots_to_local > synchronize_one_slot synchronize_remote_slot_to_local > The new names don't sound like an improvement. > validate_primary_slot check_remote_synced_slot_exists > validate_slotsync_params check_local_config > In the above cases, the current name conveys the intent of function whereas new names sound a bit generic. So, let's not change in this case. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
