On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 10:59 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM Michael Banck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 03:30:48PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > I suggested the current one because having the last was making the > > > column name bit longer, and anyway the description clarifies it, but I > > > see your point. So, the other options could be > > > slotsync_last_skip_time, sync_last_skip_time, last_slotsync_skip_time, > > > last_sync_skip_time . > > > > I also noticed while going through src/backend/catalog/system_views.sql > > that *_last_*_time is rare, so in terms of brevity, removing the _time > > at the end would be ok. "last_" already conveys time/a timestamp. > > > > I think it depends on case to case but having last in the similar > cases seems to be a common practice. So, again thinking about it based > on your suggestion and looking at existing fields, I suggest we should > rename slotsync_skip_at to slotsync_last_skip. This is similar to > checksum_last_failure. I think there is a value in keeping initials > the same for similar fields in the view as users could easily identify > the related columns while querying the view. For example, > checksum_failures and checksum_last_failure in pg_stat_database. > > Anyone else have any opinion on the names proposed here?
IMHO keeping it 'slotsync_last_skip' makes more sense, so that we can keep the *slotsync* prefix and the naming style also match with some other usage e.g. 'checksum_last_failure' as well. I see there are more common examples where the name starts with 'last_' but I prefer the 'slotsync_last_skip' name. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
