Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
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"
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Attachments:
v1-0001-Use-consistent-terminology-for-tablesync-slots.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=v1-0001-Use-consistent-terminology-for-tablesync-slots.patchDownload
From 45bd11d30d67b7b4d2854c51660fcff0bc3a3d14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Smith <peter.b.smith@fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:30:18 +1100
Subject: [PATCH v1] Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
Some pages called these tablesync slots.
Some pages called there table synchronization slots.
For consistency try make them all the same as "tablesync slots"
---
doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml | 6 +++---
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_subscription.sgml | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
index e95d446..ea94daf 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/logical-replication.sgml
@@ -252,9 +252,9 @@
replication slot on the remote (publishing) side.
</para>
<para>
- Additional table synchronization slots are normally transient, created
+ Additional tablesync slots are normally transient, created
internally to perform initial table synchronization and dropped
- automatically when they are no longer needed. These table synchronization
+ automatically when they are no longer needed. These tablesync
slots have generated names: <quote><literal>pg_%u_sync_%u_%llu</literal></quote>
(parameters: Subscription <parameter>oid</parameter>,
Table <parameter>relid</parameter>, system identifier <parameter>sysid</parameter>)
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@
the subscription. If the remote database instance no longer exists, no
further action is then necessary. If, however, the remote database
instance is just unreachable, the replication slot (and any still
- remaining table synchronization slots) should then be
+ remaining tablesync slots) should then be
dropped manually; otherwise it/they would continue to reserve WAL and might
eventually cause the disk to fill up. Such cases should be carefully
investigated.
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_subscription.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_subscription.sgml
index aee9615..98f0d39 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_subscription.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_subscription.sgml
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ DROP SUBSCRIPTION [ IF EXISTS ] <replaceable class="parameter">name</replaceable
When dropping a subscription that is associated with a replication slot on
the remote host (the normal state), <command>DROP SUBSCRIPTION</command>
will connect to the remote host and try to drop the replication slot (and
- any remaining table synchronization slots) as
+ any remaining tablesync slots) as
part of its operation. This is necessary so that the resources allocated
for the subscription on the remote host are released. If this fails,
either because the remote host is not reachable or because the remote
@@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ DROP SUBSCRIPTION [ IF EXISTS ] <replaceable class="parameter">name</replaceable
executing <literal>ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... SET (slot_name = NONE)</literal>.
After that, <command>DROP SUBSCRIPTION</command> will no longer attempt any
actions on a remote host. Note that if the remote replication slot still
- exists, it (and any related table synchronization slots) should then be
+ exists, it (and any related tablesync slots) should then be
dropped manually; otherwise it/they will continue to
reserve WAL and might eventually cause the disk to fill up. See
also <xref linkend="logical-replication-subscription-slot"/>.
--
1.8.3.1
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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:44 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.
+1 for the phrasing "tablesync slots" to "table synchronization slots"
as it is more readable. And also the user facing error message and guc
description i.e. "logical replication table synchronization worker for
subscription" and max_sync_workers_per_subscription respectively are
showing it that way.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
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.
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Attachments:
v2-0001-Use-consistent-terminology-for-tablesync-slots.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=v2-0001-Use-consistent-terminology-for-tablesync-slots.patchDownload
From b9e3a60bf1369430424f136c6a188c898b0d95f0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Smith <peter.b.smith@fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 10:19:22 +1100
Subject: [PATCH v2] Use consistent terminology for tablesync slots.
1. Some pages called these tablesync slots.
2. Some pages called these table synchronization slots.
For consistency try make them all the same as 2.
---
doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml
index 0adf68e..5aed269 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/alter_subscription.sgml
@@ -51,8 +51,8 @@ ALTER SUBSCRIPTION <replaceable class="parameter">name</replaceable> RENAME TO <
<para>
When refreshing a publication we remove the relations that are no longer
- part of the publication and we also remove the tablesync slots if there are
- any. It is necessary to remove tablesync slots so that the resources
+ part of the publication and we also remove the table synchronization slots
+ if there are any. It is necessary to remove these slots so that the resources
allocated for the subscription on the remote host are released. If due to
network breakdown or some other error, <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>
is unable to remove the slots, an ERROR will be reported. To proceed in this
--
1.8.3.1
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.