On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:27 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 05:02:31PM +0900, myungkyu.lim wrote: > >> I got confused by the field name. If we have 'last_msg_send_time' > >> field in pg_stat_replciation which has information of wal senders > >> users would think it as a time when the wal sender sent a message last > >> time. However values of the fields actually shows a time when the wal > >> receiver sent a reply message last time. So perhaps > >> 'last_reply_send_time' would be more clear. > > > > Good point. 'last_reply_send_time' is better. > > How about just 'reply_time'? > > Please note that the original thread has mentioned reply_timestamp as a > consensus: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZ39FvwbVQGAusNx_Mv%3DyqOr_UFuFnMorNYNvxPaxkOeA%40mail.gmail.com
Yeah, I also agree with 'reply_time'. But please also note that we had the discussion when there is not the similar system catalogs and fields. Now that we have them it might be worth to consider to follow the existing name for consistency. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
