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