On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Andres Freund <andres@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 <craig@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