Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed. So +1 for synchronized_stnadby_slots.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com