Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 8:52 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here are some comments for patch v66-0001.
>
> ======
> doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
>
> 1.
> +      <para>
> +       If true, the associated replication slots (i.e. the main slot and the
> +       table sync slots) in the upstream database are enabled to be
> +       synchronized to the physical standbys
> +      </para></entry>
>
> /physical standbys/physical standby/
>
> I wondered if it is better just to say singular "standby" instead of
> "standbys" in places like this; e.g. plural might imply cascading for
> some readers.
>

I don't think it is confusing as we used in a similar way in docs. We
can probably avoid using physical in places similar to above as that
is implied

>
>
> ======
> src/backend/replication/slotfuncs.c
>
> 11. create_physical_replication_slot
>
>   /* acquire replication slot, this will check for conflicting names */
>   ReplicationSlotCreate(name, false,
> -   temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_PERSISTENT, false);
> +   temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_PERSISTENT, false,
> +   false);
>
> Having an inline comment might be helpful here instead of passing "false,false"
>
> SUGGESTION
> ReplicationSlotCreate(name, false,
>  temporary ? RS_TEMPORARY : RS_PERSISTENT, false,
>  false /* failover */);
>

I don't think we follow to use of inline comments. I feel that
sometimes makes code difficult to read considering when we have
multiple such parameters.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.