MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220215182641.2cejma6tcgeoqyw2@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAA4eK1Jwn5hhgHJWZ9n+wYyQEk+brfR1zkuqLjh=waji8RYWAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAqEt=TbUDY96Uhf9pNuh-NDR_3-CByd+xR=tFEq==1NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoA-MVZcMA1iYwbtvTCOHx1SwG8amQUTT8j2ssh2zuc6OQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220218203255.d3evl6qi2n6gxy6b@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAD21AoDTO3bJvrc39Tv3VCeyUzZpimXnJuRhHQhKyjOWorHeOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220219160203.y5w2ktc2utthn7pe@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAD21AoA_r+Wc-zJZdy4Lii3oOvvdGcLwrY=2Y4y63HueYSd6Eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221053453.lo6fzmji23ennvgj@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAA4eK1+j00Pc+p=AfJLXh-a+OJ-a0UD4adMr2tRkQvKG_LggHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220221074806.nyhdberpuwbcbudp@alap3.anarazel.de> <CAA4eK1J3dhfMRNQ6Q585nFr1vmXaTXVW9qv4hmUxLwDwJp-9RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKFQuwZu=CA9FXDqiz99dX8EsprH3QuL6nrJORP4WikhYOAf-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwZu=CA9FXDqiz99dX8EsprH3QuL6nrJORP4WikhYOAf-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:07:30 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1+H5aaL_z6FStskGQ8NEAjTk7d+1s=s_iwa+aTtWZopjg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Design of pg_stat_subscription_workers vs pgstats
To: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BH5aaL_z6FStskGQ8NEAjTk7d%2B1s%3Ds_iwa%2BaTtWZopjg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:37 PM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:19 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 1:18 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> > > The view name could be pg_stat_subscription_lrep,
>> > > pg_stat_logical_replication, or something on those lines.
>> >
>> > pg_stat_subscription_stats :)
>> >
>>
>> Having *stat* two times in the name sounds slightly odd to me but let
>> us see what others think. One more option could be
>> pg_stat_subscription_replication.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> pg_stat_subscription_activity
>
> We already have pg_stat_activity (which may be an argument against the suggestion...)
>

I don't know if that can be an argument against it but one can imagine
that we record other subscription changes like (change of
publications, etc.). I personally feel it may be better to add
'_replication' in some way like pg_stat_sub_replication_activity but I
am fine either way.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.