On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 8:20 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:21 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > I agree the current name seems too generic and the suggested ' > > > synchronized_standby_slots ' > > > is better than the current one. > > > > > > Some other ideas could be: > > > > > > synchronize_slots_on_standbys: it indicates that the standbys that enabled > > > slot sync should be listed in this GUC. > > > > > > logical_replication_wait_slots: it means the logical replication(logical > > > Walsender process) will wait for these slots to advance the confirm flush > > > lsn before proceeding. > > > > I feel that the name that has some connection to "logical replication" > > also sounds good. Let me add some ideas: > > > > - logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots (might be too long) > > - logical_replication_synchronous_slots > > > > I see your point about keeping logical_replication in the name but > that could also lead one to think that this list can contain logical > slots.
Right. > OTOH, there is some value in keeping '_standby_' in the name as > that is more closely associated with physical standby's and this list > contains physical slots corresponding to physical standby's. Agreed. > So, my > preference is in order as follows: synchronized_standby_slots, > wait_for_standby_slots, logical_replication_wait_slots, > logical_replication_synchronous_slots, and > logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots. I also prefer synchronized_standby_slots. >From a different angle just for discussion, is it worth considering the term 'failover' since the purpose of this feature is to ensure a standby to be ready for failover in terms of logical replication? For example, failover_standby_slot_names? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
