Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)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.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.