On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:21 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 22, 2024 5:47 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 1:49 AM Nathan Bossart
> > <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >>>>> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be
> > > >>>>> synchronized before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie,
> > > >>>>> Shveta Malik)
> > > >
> > > > it seems like the name ought to have some connection to
> > > > synchronization. Perhaps something like "synchronized_standby_slots"?
> > >
> > > IMHO that might be a bit too close to synchronous_standby_names.
> > >
> >
> > Right, but better than the current one. The other possibility could be
> > wait_for_standby_slots.
>
> I agree the current name seems too generic and the suggested ' synchronized_standby_slots '
> is better than the current one.
>
> Some other ideas could be:
>
> synchronize_slots_on_standbys: it indicates that the standbys that enabled
> slot sync should be listed in this GUC.
>
> logical_replication_wait_slots: it means the logical replication(logical
> Walsender process) will wait for these slots to advance the confirm flush
> lsn before proceeding.
I feel that the name that has some connection to "logical replication"
also sounds good. Let me add some ideas:
- logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots (might be too long)
- logical_replication_synchronous_slots
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com