Re: Separate GUC for replication origins
От | Euler Taveira |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 45b8e77e-1e8c-4b15-8776-30a964de0dc5@app.fastmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Separate GUC for replication origins (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Separate GUC for replication origins
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025, at 6:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:38 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:>> On 11.02.25 21:25, Euler Taveira wrote:> > Here is another patch that only changes the GUC name to> > max_replication_origin_sessions.>> I think the naming and description of this is still confusing.>......>> I agree that the originally proposed name max_replication_origins is not> good, because you can "create" (using pg_replication_origin_create())> more than the configured maximum. What is the term for what the setting> actually controls? How many are "active"? "In use"? Per session? etc.>It controls the number of active sessions using origin. The idea isthat to track replication progress via replication_origin we need todo replorigin_session_setup(). If you look in the code, we have usedthe term replorigin_session* in many places, so we thought of namingthis as max_replication_origin_sessions. But the other options couldbe max_active_replication_origins or max_replication_origins_in_use.
The word "session" is correlated to "replication origin" but requires some
knowledge to know the replication progress tracking design. The word "active"
can express the fact that it was setup and is currently in use. I vote for
max_active_replication_origins.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: