| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:19:45 |
| Message-ID: | ZnXgYZqzte7f9fkM@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> 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"?
IMHO that might be a bit too close to synchronous_standby_names. But the
name might not be the only issue, as there is a separate proposal [0] to
add _another_ GUC to tie standby_slot_names to synchronous replication. I
wonder if this could just be a Boolean parameter or if folks really have
use-cases for both a list of synchronous standbys and a separate list of
synchronous standbys for failover slots.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/CA%2B-JvFtq6f7%2BwAwSdud-x0yMTeMejUhpkyid1Xa_VNpRd_-oPw%40mail.gmail.com
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-06-21 20:22:44 | FreezeLimit underflows in pg14 and 15 causing incorrect behavior in heap_prepare_freeze_tuple |
| Previous Message | Muhammad Ikram | 2024-06-21 20:03:09 | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |