Hi,
On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:24 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +/* GUC variable */
> > > > +bool enable_syncslot = false;
> > > >
> > > > Is enable_syncslot a really good name? We use "enable" prefix only for
> > > > planner parameters such as enable_seqscan, and it seems to me that
> > > > "slot" is not specific. Other candidates are:
> > > >
> > > > * synchronize_replication_slots = on|off
> > > > * synchronize_failover_slots = on|off
> > > >
> > >
> > > I would prefer the second one. Would it be better to just say
> > > sync_failover_slots?
> >
> > Works for me. But if we want to extend this option for non-failover
> > slots as well in the future, synchronize_replication_slots (or
> > sync_replication_slots) seems better. We can extend it by having an
> > enum later. For example, the values can be on, off, or failover etc.
> >
>
> I see your point. Let us see if others have any suggestions on this.
I also see Sawada-San's point and I'd vote for "sync_replication_slots". Then for
the current feature I think "failover" and "on" should be the values to turn the
feature on (assuming "on" would mean "all kind of supported slots").
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com