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