On 2015-04-21 10:53:08 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> I don't really like the 'pid' field for pg_replication_slots. About > >> naming it 'active_in' or such? > > > > It was originally named active_pid, but changed based on feedback from > > others that 'pid' would be consistent with pg_stat_activity and > > pg_replication_slots. I have no strong opinion on the name, though I'd > > prefer it reflect that the field does in fact represent a process ID. > > Agreed. I don't like the as-committed name of active_in either. It's > not at all clear what that means.
I like it being called active_*, that makes the correlation to active clear. active_pid then? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
