On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:21 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, June 22, 2024 5:47 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 1:49 AM Nathan Bossart > > <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > >>>>> 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"? > > > > > > IMHO that might be a bit too close to synchronous_standby_names. > > > > > > > Right, but better than the current one. The other possibility could be > > wait_for_standby_slots. > > I agree the current name seems too generic and the suggested ' > synchronized_standby_slots ' > is better than the current one. > > Some other ideas could be: > > synchronize_slots_on_standbys: it indicates that the standbys that enabled > slot sync should be listed in this GUC. > > logical_replication_wait_slots: it means the logical replication(logical > Walsender process) will wait for these slots to advance the confirm flush > lsn before proceeding.
I feel that the name that has some connection to "logical replication" also sounds good. Let me add some ideas: - logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots (might be too long) - logical_replication_synchronous_slots Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
