Re: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-31T05:10:15Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 6:39 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 8:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:21 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > The logical replication tablesync worker creates tablesync slots. > > > > > > Previously some PG docs pages were referring to these as "tablesync > > > slots", but other pages called them as "table synchronization slots". > > > > > > PSA a trivial patch which (for consistency) now calls them all the > > > same - "tablesync slots" > > > > > > > +1 for the consistency. But I think it better to use "table > > synchronization slots" in the user-facing docs as that makes it easier > > for users to understand. > > > > PSA patch version 2 updated to use "table synchronization slots" as suggested. > Thanks, Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
Commits
-
Doc: Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
- 9f45631766bd 14.0 landed