Hi, On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 10:24:41AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 8:20 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:21 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > I see your point about keeping logical_replication in the name but > that could also lead one to think that this list can contain logical > slots.
Agree, and we may add the same functionality for physical replication slots in the future too (it has been discussed in the thread [1]). So I don't think "logical" should be part of the name. > OTOH, there is some value in keeping '_standby_' in the name as > that is more closely associated with physical standby's and this list > contains physical slots corresponding to physical standby's. So, my > preference is in order as follows: synchronized_standby_slots, > wait_for_standby_slots, logical_replication_wait_slots, > logical_replication_synchronous_slots, and > logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots. > I like the idea of having "synchronize[d]" in the name as it makes think of the feature it is linked to [2]. The slots mentioned in this parameter are linked to the "primary_slot_name" parameter on the standby, so what about? synchronized_primary_slot_names It makes clear it is somehow linked to "primary_slot_name" and that we want them to be in sync. So I'd vote for (in that order); synchronized_primary_slot_names, synchronized_standby_slots [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bb437218-73bc-34c3-b8fb-8c1be4ddaec9%40enterprisedb.com [2]: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=93db6cbda037f1be9544932bd9a785dabf3ff712 Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
