On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:27 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 03:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 9:13 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Also, adding wait sounds
> > > > more like a boolean. So, I don't see the proposed names any better
> > > > than the current one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Anyway, the point is that the current GUC name 'standby_slot_names' is
> > > not ideal IMO because it doesn't have enough meaning by itself -- e.g.
> > > you have to read the accompanying comment or documentation to have any
> > > idea of its purpose.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, one has to read the description but that is true for other
> > parameters like "temp_tablespaces". I don't have any better ideas but
> > open to suggestions.
>
> What about "non_lagging_standby_slots"?
>
I still prefer the current one as that at least resembles with
existing synchronous_standby_names. I think we can change the GUC name
if we get an agreement on a better name before release. At this stage,
let's move with the current one.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.