On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 also prefer synchronized_standby_slots. > > From a different angle just for discussion, is it worth considering > the term 'failover' since the purpose of this feature is to ensure a > standby to be ready for failover in terms of logical replication? For > example, failover_standby_slot_names? >
I feel synchronized better indicates the purpose because we ensure such slots are synchronized before we process changes for logical failover slots. We already have a 'failover' option for logical slots which could make things confusing if we add 'failover' where physical slots need to be specified. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
