From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Date: | 2024-06-21 19:50:00 |
Message-ID: | 640830.1718999400@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> A humble input, as on primary we have #primary_slot_name = '' then should
> not it be okay to have standby_slot_names or standby_slot_name ? It seems
> consistent with the Guc on primary.
> Another suggestion is *standby_replication_slots*.
IIUC, Bruce's complaint is that the name is too generic (which I agree
with). Given the stated functionality:
>>>> 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"?
I haven't read the patch, so I don't know if this name is especially
on-point. But "standby_slot_names" seems completely unhelpful, as
a server could well have slots that are for standbys but are not to
be included in this list.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Muhammad Ikram | 2024-06-21 20:03:09 | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-21 19:43:47 | Re: Small LO_BUFSIZE slows down lo_import and lo_export in libpq |