On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > So, my
> > > > preference is in order as follows: synchronized_standby_slots,
> > > > wait_for_standby_slots, logical_replication_wait_slots,
> > > > logical_replication_synchronous_slots, and
> > > > logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots.
> > >
> > > I also prefer synchronized_standby_slots.
> > >
> > > From a different angle just for discussion, is it worth considering
> > > the term 'failover' since the purpose of this feature is to ensure a
> > > standby to be ready for failover in terms of logical replication?
> > > For example, failover_standby_slot_names?
> > >
> >
> > I feel synchronized better indicates the purpose because we ensure
> > such slots are synchronized before we process changes for logical
> > failover slots. We already have a 'failover' option for logical slots
> > which could make things confusing if we add 'failover' where physical
> > slots need to be specified.
>
> Agreed. So +1 for synchronized_stnadby_slots.
+1.
Since there is a consensus on this name, I am attaching the patch to rename
the GUC to synchronized_stnadby_slots. I have confirmed that the regression
tests and pgindent passed for the patch.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Best Regards,
Hou zj
