Thanks Tom Lane. You are more insightful. Regards, Ikram
On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 12:50 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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 > -- Muhammad Ikram
