Muhammad Ikram <mmik...@gmail.com> writes:
> A humble input, as on primary we have #primary_slot_name = '' then should
> not it be okay to have standby_slot_names or standby_slot_name ? It seems
> consistent with the Guc on primary.
> Another suggestion is *standby_replication_slots*.
IIUC, Bruce's complaint is that the name is too generic (which I agree
with). Given the stated functionality:
>>>> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
>>>> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
it seems like the name ought to have some connection to
synchronization. Perhaps something like "synchronized_standby_slots"?
I haven't read the patch, so I don't know if this name is especially
on-point. But "standby_slot_names" seems completely unhelpful, as
a server could well have slots that are for standbys but are not to
be included in this list.
regards, tom lane
