On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 02:02:09PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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? > > I feel synchronized better indicates the purpose because we ensure > such slots are synchronized before we process changes for logical > failover slots. We already have a 'failover' option for logical slots > which could make things confusing if we add 'failover' where physical > slots need to be specified.
I'm fine with synchronized_standby_slots. -- nathan
