On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 02:02:09PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So, my
>> > preference is in order as follows: synchronized_standby_slots,
>> > wait_for_standby_slots, logical_replication_wait_slots,
>> > logical_replication_synchronous_slots, and
>> > logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots.
>>
>> I also prefer synchronized_standby_slots.
>>
>> From a different angle just for discussion, is it worth considering
>> the term 'failover' since the purpose of this feature is to ensure a
>> standby to be ready for failover in terms of logical replication? For
>> example, failover_standby_slot_names?
>
> I feel synchronized better indicates the purpose because we ensure
> such slots are synchronized before we process changes for logical
> failover slots. We already have a 'failover' option for logical slots
> which could make things confusing if we add 'failover' where physical
> slots need to be specified.
I'm fine with synchronized_standby_slots.
--
nathan