On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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?
wfm -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
