Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

Thanks Tom Lane. You are more insightful.

Regards,
Ikram

On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> 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
>

--
Muhammad Ikram