On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 4:20 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 4:24 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 10:53 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ... > > > 2. Arrange all the counts into an intuitive/natural order > > > > > > There is an intuitive/natural ordering for these counts. For example, > > > the 'confl_*' count fields are in the order insert -> update -> > > > delete, which LGTM. > > > > > > Meanwhile, the 'apply_error_count' and the 'sync_error_count' are not > > > in a good order. > > > > > > IMO it makes more sense if everything is ordered as: > > > 'sync_error_count', then 'apply_error_count', then all the 'confl_*' > > > counts. > > > > > > This comment applies to lots of places, e.g.: > > > - docs (doc/src/sgml/monitoring.sgml) > > > - function pg_stat_get_subscription_stats (pg_proc.dat) > > > - view pg_stat_subscription_stats (src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql) > > > - TAP test SELECTs (test/subscription/t/026_stats.pl) > > > > > > As all those places are already impacted by this patch, I think it > > > would be good if (in passing) we (if possible) also swapped the > > > sync/apply counts so everything is ordered intuitively top-to-bottom > > > or left-to-right. > > > > Not sure about this though. It does not seem to belong to the current patch. > > > > Fair enough. But, besides being inappropriate to include in the > current patch, do you think the suggestion to reorder them made sense? > If it has some merit, then I will propose it again as a separate > thread. >
Yes, I think it makes sense. With respect to internal code, it might be still okay as is, but when it comes to pg_stat_subscription_stats, I think it is better if user finds it in below order: subid | subname | sync_error_count | apply_error_count | confl_* rather than the existing one: subid | subname | apply_error_count | sync_error_count | confl_* thanks Shveta
