On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:42 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> - The <option>--two-phase</option> and <option>--falover</option> options
> > >> + The <option>--two-phase</option> and <option>--failover</option> options
> > >
> > > Thank you for the report and the patch! Pushed.
> >
> > I wonder if the option name --failover is ideal. To me, it sounds like
> > an action "do a failover!". Also consider that pg_recvlogical has other
> > action options such as --start and --create-slot, so it sounds a bit
> > like those.
>
> Fair point.
>
> > Maybe something like --enable-failover would be better?
>
> Sounds better, but probably the --two-phase option has the same issue?
>
Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various
slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as: "
The --two-phase and --failover options can be specified with
--create-slot.", it is clear that these are slot options. The previous
version docs have a description: "The --two-phase can be specified
with --create-slot to enable decoding of prepared transactions." which
makes it even more clear that the two-phase is a slot option. The
options are named similarly in pg_create_logical_replication_slot API
and during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, so, to some level, there is a
consistency in naming of these options across all APIs/tools. But,
their usage in a tool like pg_recvlogical could be perceived
differently as well, so it is also okay to consider naming them
differently.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
