Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 04:09:15PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:38 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I also see Sawada-San's point and I'd vote for "sync_replication_slots". Then for
> > the current feature I think "failover" and "on" should be the values to turn the
> > feature on (assuming "on" would mean "all kind of supported slots").
>
> Even if others agree and we change this GUC name to
> "sync_replication_slots", I feel we should keep the values as "on" and
> "off" currently, where "on" would mean 'sync failover slots' (docs can
> state that clearly).

I gave more thoughts on it and I think the values should only be "failover" or
"off".

The reason is that if we allow "on" and change the "on" behavior in future
versions (to support more than failover slots) then that would change the behavior
for the ones that used "on".

That's right that we can mention it in the docs, but there is still the risk of
users not reading the doc (that's why I think that it would be good if we can put
this extra "safety" in the code too).

> I do not think we should support sync of "all
> kinds of supported slots" in the first version. Maybe we can think
> about it for future versions.

Yeah I think the same (I was mentioning the future "on" behavior up-thread).

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com