Hi, On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:25:10PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote: > > The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running > > clusters with quorum-based synchronous replicas. For instance, if > > the user has synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' it's a > > bit tedious to have to reconfigure the standby_slot_names to set it to > > the most updated 3 sync replicas whenever different sync replicas start > > lagging. In the event that both GUCs are set, 'standby_slot_names' takes > > precedence. > > Hm. IIUC you'd essentially need to set standby_slot_names to "A,B,C,D,E" > to get the desired behavior today. That might ordinarily be okay, but it > could cause logical replication to be held back unnecessarily if one of the > replicas falls behind for whatever reason. A way to tie standby_slot_names > to synchronous replication instead does seem like it would be useful in > this case.
FWIW, I have the same understanding and also think your proposal would be useful in this case. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
