On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:27 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 03:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 9:13 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Also, adding wait sounds > > > > more like a boolean. So, I don't see the proposed names any better > > > > than the current one. > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, the point is that the current GUC name 'standby_slot_names' is > > > not ideal IMO because it doesn't have enough meaning by itself -- e.g. > > > you have to read the accompanying comment or documentation to have any > > > idea of its purpose. > > > > > > > Yeah, one has to read the description but that is true for other > > parameters like "temp_tablespaces". I don't have any better ideas but > > open to suggestions. > > What about "non_lagging_standby_slots"? >
I still prefer the current one as that at least resembles with existing synchronous_standby_names. I think we can change the GUC name if we get an agreement on a better name before release. At this stage, let's move with the current one. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
