On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com> writes: > A humble input, as on primary we have #primary_slot_name = '' then should > not it be okay to have standby_slot_names or standby_slot_name ? It seems > consistent with the Guc on primary. > Another suggestion is *standby_replication_slots*.
IIUC, Bruce's complaint is that the name is too generic (which I agree with). Given the stated functionality:
>>>> 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"?
I haven't read the patch, so I don't know if this name is especially on-point. But "standby_slot_names" seems completely unhelpful, as a server could well have slots that are for standbys but are not to be included in this list.