On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:15 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:00 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 12:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 6:53 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It's right that we use "STREAM STOP" rather than "STREAM END" in > > > > > > many > > > > > > places such as elog messages, a callback name, and source code > > > > > > comments. As far as I have found there are two places where we’re > > > > > > using "STREAM STOP": LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END and a description in > > > > > > doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml. Isn't it better to fix these > > > > > > inconsistencies in the first place? I think “STREAM STOP” would be > > > > > > more appropriate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think keeping STREAM_END in the enum 'LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END' > > > > > seems to be a bit better because of the value 'E' we use for it. > > > > > > > > But I think we don't care about the actual value of > > > > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END since we use the enum value rather than > > > > 'E'? > > > > > > > > > > True, but here we are trying to be consistent with other enum values > > > where we try to use the first letter of the last word (which is E in > > > this case). I can see there are other cases where we are not > > > consistent so it won't be a big deal if we won't be consistent here. I > > > am neutral on this one, so, if you feel using STREAM_STOP would be > > > better from a code readability perspective then that is fine. > > > > In addition of a code readability, there is a description in the doc > > that mentions "Stream End" but we describe "Stream Stop" in the later > > description, which seems a bug in the doc to me: > > > > Doc changes looks good to me. But, I have question for code change: > > --- a/src/include/replication/logicalproto.h > +++ b/src/include/replication/logicalproto.h > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ typedef enum LogicalRepMsgType > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_COMMIT_PREPARED = 'K', > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_ROLLBACK_PREPARED = 'r', > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_START = 'S', > - LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_END = 'E', > + LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_STOP = 'E', > LOGICAL_REP_MSG_STREAM_COMMIT = 'c', > > As this is changing the enum name and if any extension (logical > replication extension) has started using it then they would require a > change. As this is the latest change in PG-14, so it might be okay but > OTOH, as this is just a code readability change, shall we do it only > for PG-15?
I think that the doc changes could be backpatched to PG14 but I think we should do the code change only for PG15. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
