On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 6:15 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 26, 2024 12:49 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > A few comments: > > Thanks for the 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? > > I intentionally copied some words from release note of this GUC which was > also part of the content in the initial email of this thread. I think it > would be easy to understand than the original commit msg. But others may > have different opinion, so I would leave the decision to the committer. (I > adjusted > a bit the word in this version). > > > > > 2 ==== > > > > Should we rename StandbySlotNamesConfigData too? > > > > 3 ==== > > > > Should we rename SlotExistsInStandbySlotNames too? > > > > 4 ==== > > > > Should we rename validate_standby_slots() too? > > > > Renamed these to the names suggested by Amit. > > Attach the v2 patch set which addressed above and removed > the changes in release-17.sgml according to the comment from Amit. >
Thank you for updating the patch. The v2 patch looks good to me. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
