On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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?
Let's call it active_procpid. (Runs for cover!)
----
(For background, see 9.2 release note item:
Rename pg_stat_activity.procpid to pid, to match other system tables
(Magnus
Hagander)
The 'p' in 'pid' stands for 'proc', so 'procpid' is redundant.)
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
