Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZnXgYZqzte7f9fkM@nathan обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. But the name might not be the only issue, as there is a separate proposal [0] to add _another_ GUC to tie standby_slot_names to synchronous replication. I wonder if this could just be a Boolean parameter or if folks really have use-cases for both a list of synchronous standbys and a separate list of synchronous standbys for failover slots. [0] https://postgr.es/m/CA%2B-JvFtq6f7%2BwAwSdud-x0yMTeMejUhpkyid1Xa_VNpRd_-oPw%40mail.gmail.com -- nathan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: