On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 9:40 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 5:32 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > Agreed. So +1 for synchronized_stnadby_slots.
+1. Since there is a consensus on this name, I am attaching the patch to rename the GUC to synchronized_stnadby_slots. I have confirmed that the regression tests and pgindent passed for the patch. Best Regards, Hou zj Best Regards, Hou zj
0001-Rename-standby_slot_names-to-synchronized_standby_sl.patch
Description: 0001-Rename-standby_slot_names-to-synchronized_standby_sl.patch
