On 21.06.24 17:37, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The release notes have this item:
>
> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
>
> The new server variable is standby_slot_names.
>
> Is standby_slot_names an accurate name for this GUC? It seems too
> generic.
This was possibly inspired by pg_failover_slots.standby_slot_names
(which in turn came from pglogical.standby_slot_names). In those cases,
you have some more context from the extension prefix.
The new suggested names sound good to me.