Hi,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 04:17:45AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> 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:
> > >
> > > 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.
>
Thanks for the patch!
A few comments:
1 ====
In the commit message:
"
The standby_slot_names GUC is intended to allow specification of physical
standby slots that must be synchronized before they are visible to
subscribers
"
Not sure that wording is correct, if we feel the need to explain the GUC,
maybe repeat some wording from bf279ddd1c?
2 ====
Should we rename StandbySlotNamesConfigData too?
3 ====
Should we rename SlotExistsInStandbySlotNames too?
4 ====
Should we rename validate_standby_slots() too?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
