Hi, On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:25:37PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:12 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Would "released_time" sounds better? (at the end this is exactly what it > > does > > represent unless for the case where it is restored from disk for which the > > meaning > > would still makes sense to me though). It seems to me that released_time > > does not > > lead to any expectation then removing any confusion. > > Yeah, that's not bad. I mean, I don't agree that released_time doesn't > lead to any expectation, > but what it leads me to expect is that you're > going to tell me the time at which the slot was released. So if it's > currently active, then I see NULL, because it's not released; but if > it's inactive, then I see the time at which it became so. > > In the same vein, I think deactivated_at or inactive_since might be > good names to consider. I think they get at the same thing as > released_time, but they avoid introducing a completely new word > (release, as opposed to active/inactive). >
Yeah, I'd vote for inactive_since then. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
