Thread: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Jaime Casanova
Date:
Hi,

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

-- 
Jaime Casanova                      www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
> not *only* a list of names anymore.

> synchronous_standby_config?
> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

I could get behind renaming it to synchronous_standby_config ...
        regards, tom lane



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Peter Eisentraut
Date:
On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>
> synchronous_standby_config?
> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would 
leave it as is.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
"David G. Johnston"
Date:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it as is.

​+1
David J.

Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Michael Paquier
Date:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>
>>> synchronous_standby_config?
>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>>
>>
>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
>> it as is.
>
>
> +1

+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.
-- 
Michael



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Masahiko Sawada
Date:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>>
>>>> synchronous_standby_config?
>>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>>>
>>>
>>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
>>> it as is.
>>
>>
>> +1
>
> +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
> that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
> effort.

+1

-- 
Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Vik Fearing
Date:
On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>>
>>>> synchronous_standby_config?
>>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>>>
>>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
>>> it as is.
>>
>> +1
> 
> +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
> that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
> effort.

We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica.

I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it.
-- 
Vik Fearing                                          +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>
>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>
>> synchronous_standby_config?
>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>
>
> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it
> as is.

+1, emphatically.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



Re: Rename synchronous_standby_names?

From
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
At Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:52:31 +0200, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote in <5751454F.6020607@2ndquadrant.fr>
> On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
> > <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> >> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
> >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>> synchronous_standby_config?
> >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
> >>>
> >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
> >>> it as is.
> >>
> >> +1
> > 
> > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
> > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
> > effort.

FWIW, +1 from me.

> We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica.
> 
> I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it.

synchronous_standby_names is wantedly designed so as to accept
the old format. This is of couse for backward compatibility and
not to add new GUC variable needlessly.

And, I suppose that changing the domain of a GUC and changing
(only) the name of the varialbe is a bit different things and the
latter seems to me to have somewhat larger impact for users.

regards,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center