From: | Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 19:13:08 |
Message-ID: | CAGeimVpZQaGAq408noGytjizgeCWduuLv1bzLtXV0tSEqdVNoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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*.
Regards,
Muhammad Ikram
Bitnine Global.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:47 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:37:54AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The release notes have this item:
> >
> > Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
> > before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
> >
> > The new server variable is standby_slot_names.
> >
> > Is standby_slot_names an accurate name for this GUC? It seems too
> > generic.
>
> +1, I was considering bringing this up, too. I'm still thinking of
> alternate names to propose, though.
>
> --
> nathan
>
>
>
--
Muhammad Ikram
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-21 19:43:47 | Re: Small LO_BUFSIZE slows down lo_import and lo_export in libpq |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-21 17:33:43 | Re: suspicious valgrind reports about radixtree/tidstore on arm64 |