Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
Date
Msg-id ZnbJPQbe8ZiblIz3@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 03:17:03PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 1:49 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >>>>> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
> > >>>>> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
> > >
> > > it seems like the name ought to have some connection to
> > > synchronization.  Perhaps something like "synchronized_standby_slots"?
> >
> > IMHO that might be a bit too close to synchronous_standby_names.
> >
> 
> Right, but better than the current one. The other possibility could be
> wait_for_standby_slots.

FYI, changing this GUC name could force an initdb because
postgresql.conf would have the old name and removing the comment to
change it would cause an error.  Therefore, we should change it ASAP.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay
Next
From: Alexander Korotkov
Date:
Subject: Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements