| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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: | 2024-06-26 19:32:27 |
| Message-ID: | a5d79e56-8ef6-4de7-a66a-9e1c7270bf64@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 21.06.24 17:37, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The release notes have this item:
>
> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
>
> The new server variable is standby_slot_names.
>
> Is standby_slot_names an accurate name for this GUC? It seems too
> generic.
This was possibly inspired by pg_failover_slots.standby_slot_names
(which in turn came from pglogical.standby_slot_names). In those cases,
you have some more context from the extension prefix.
The new suggested names sound good to me.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-06-26 20:01:47 | Re: JIT causes core dump during error recovery |
| Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2024-06-26 19:23:29 | Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility |