On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
> <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
>> <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
>>>> not *only* a list of names anymore.
>>>>
>>>> synchronous_standby_config?
>>>> synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?
>>>
>>> If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
>>> it as is.
>>
>> +1
>
> +1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
> that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
> effort.
We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica.
I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support