On Thursday, August 29, 2024 11:18 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:59 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:43 AM shveta malik > <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch. Just thinking out loud, since we have names > > > > like 'apply_error_count', 'sync_error_count' which tells that they > > > > are actually error-count, will it be better to have something > > > > similar in conflict-count cases, like > > > > 'insert_exists_conflict_count', 'delete_missing_conflict_count' and so > on. Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > It would be better to have conflict in the names but OTOH it will > > > make the names a bit longer. The other alternatives could be (a) > > > insert_exists_confl_count, etc. (b) confl_insert_exists_count, etc. > > > (c) confl_insert_exists, etc. These are based on the column names in > > > the existing view pg_stat_database_conflicts [1]. The (c) looks > > > better than other options but it will make the conflict-related > > > columns different from error-related columns. > > > > > > Yet another option is to have a different view like > > > pg_stat_subscription_conflicts but that sounds like going too far. > > Yes, I think we are good with pg_stat_subscription_stats for the time being. > > > > > > > [1] - > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORI > > > NG-PG-STAT-DATABASE-CONFLICTS-VIEW > > > > Option (c) looked good to me. > > +1 for option c. it should be okay to not have '_count' in the name.
Agreed. Here is new version patch which change the names as suggested. I also rebased the patch based on another renaming commit 640178c9. Best Regards, Hou zj
v4-0001-Collect-statistics-about-conflicts-in-logical-rep.patch
Description: v4-0001-Collect-statistics-about-conflicts-in-logical-rep.patch
