Hi, On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:12:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:26 AM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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...@gmail.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". > > > > I again thought on this point and feel that even if we start to sync > say physical slots their purpose would also be to allow > failover/switchover, otherwise, there is no use of syncing the slots.
Yeah, I think this is a good point. > So, by that theory, we can just go for naming it as > sync_failover_slots or simply sync_slots with values 'off' and 'on'. > Now, if these are used for switchover then there is an argument that > adding 'failover' in the GUC name could be confusing but I feel > 'failover' is used widely enough that it shouldn't be a problem for > users to understand, otherwise, we can go with simple name like > sync_slots as well. > I agree and "on"/"off" looks enough to me now. As far the GUC name I've the feeling that "replication" should be part of it, and think that sync_replication_slots is fine. The reason behind is that "sync_slots" could be confusing if in the future other kind of "slot" (other than replication ones) are added in the engine. Thoughts? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
