At Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:52:31 +0200, Vik Fearing <v...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote in <5751454f.6020...@2ndquadrant.fr> > On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston > > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut > >> <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is > >>>> not *only* a list of names anymore. > >>>> > >>>> synchronous_standby_config? > >>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)? > >>> > >>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave > >>> it as is. > >> > >> +1 > > > > +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync > > that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that > > effort.
FWIW, +1 from me. > We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica. > > I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it. synchronous_standby_names is wantedly designed so as to accept the old format. This is of couse for backward compatibility and not to add new GUC variable needlessly. And, I suppose that changing the domain of a GUC and changing (only) the name of the varialbe is a bit different things and the latter seems to me to have somewhat larger impact for users. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers