Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZnudzJHj5XBJSyFu@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
RE: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:17:45AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Agreed. So +1 for synchronized_stnadby_slots. > > +1. > > Since there is a consensus on this name, I am attaching the patch to rename > the GUC to synchronized_stnadby_slots. I have confirmed that the regression > tests and pgindent passed for the patch. > Thanks for the patch! A few comments: 1 ==== In the commit message: " The standby_slot_names GUC is intended to allow specification of physical standby slots that must be synchronized before they are visible to subscribers " Not sure that wording is correct, if we feel the need to explain the GUC, maybe repeat some wording from bf279ddd1c? 2 ==== Should we rename StandbySlotNamesConfigData too? 3 ==== Should we rename SlotExistsInStandbySlotNames too? 4 ==== Should we rename validate_standby_slots() too? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: