Hi,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:25:10PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote:
> > The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running
> > clusters with quorum-based synchronous replicas. For instance, if
> > the user has synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' it's a
> > bit tedious to have to reconfigure the standby_slot_names to set it to
> > the most updated 3 sync replicas whenever different sync replicas start
> > lagging. In the event that both GUCs are set, 'standby_slot_names' takes
> > precedence.
>
> Hm. IIUC you'd essentially need to set standby_slot_names to "A,B,C,D,E"
> to get the desired behavior today. That might ordinarily be okay, but it
> could cause logical replication to be held back unnecessarily if one of the
> replicas falls behind for whatever reason. A way to tie standby_slot_names
> to synchronous replication instead does seem like it would be useful in
> this case.
FWIW, I have the same understanding and also think your proposal would be
useful in this case.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com