Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Muhammad Ikram <mmikram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
Date: 2024-06-22 12:53:17
Message-ID: ZnbJPQbe8ZiblIz3@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 03:17:03PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 1:49 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Right, but better than the current one. The other possibility could be
> wait_for_standby_slots.

FYI, changing this GUC name could force an initdb because
postgresql.conf would have the old name and removing the comment to
change it would cause an error. Therefore, we should change it ASAP.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Only you can decide what is important to you.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2024-06-22 13:18:51 Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2024-06-22 12:48:33 Re: Track the amount of time waiting due to cost_delay