From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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 04:17:45 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB5716D1371BEA5EEB39676F8A94D62@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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:
> >
> > 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.
+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.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
0001-Rename-standby_slot_names-to-synchronized_standby_sl.patch | application/octet-stream | 31.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-06-26 04:49:16 | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-26 04:06:13 | Re: psql (PostgreSQL) 17beta2 (Debian 17~beta2-1.pgdg+~20240625.1534.g23c5a0e) Failed to retrieve data from the server.. |