From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | RE: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Date: | 2024-06-26 09:15:48 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB57160BE0EFEABB56C81D167A94D62@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:49 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:17:45AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada
> <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila
> > > <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > +1.
> >
> > Since there is a consensus on this name, I am attaching the patch to
> > rename the GUC to synchronized_stnadby_slots. I have confirmed that
> > the regression tests and pgindent passed for the patch.
> A few comments:
Thanks for the comments!
> 1 ====
>
> In the commit message:
>
> "
> The standby_slot_names GUC is intended to allow specification of physical
> standby slots that must be synchronized before they are visible to
> subscribers
> "
>
> Not sure that wording is correct, if we feel the need to explain the GUC, maybe
> repeat some wording from bf279ddd1c?
I intentionally copied some words from release note of this GUC which was
also part of the content in the initial email of this thread. I think it
would be easy to understand than the original commit msg. But others may
have different opinion, so I would leave the decision to the committer. (I adjusted
a bit the word in this version).
>
> 2 ====
>
> Should we rename StandbySlotNamesConfigData too?
>
> 3 ====
>
> Should we rename SlotExistsInStandbySlotNames too?
>
> 4 ====
>
> Should we rename validate_standby_slots() too?
>
Renamed these to the names suggested by Amit.
Attach the v2 patch set which addressed above and removed
the changes in release-17.sgml according to the comment from Amit.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Rename-standby_slot_names-to-synchronized_standby.patch | application/octet-stream | 33.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-06-26 09:30:39 | Re: RFC: Additional Directory for Extensions |
Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2024-06-26 09:10:39 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences |