Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 640830.1718999400@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 (Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com> writes: > A humble input, as on primary we have #primary_slot_name = '' then should > not it be okay to have standby_slot_names or standby_slot_name ? It seems > consistent with the Guc on primary. > Another suggestion is *standby_replication_slots*. IIUC, Bruce's complaint is that the name is too generic (which I agree with). Given the stated functionality: >>>> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized >>>> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik) it seems like the name ought to have some connection to synchronization. Perhaps something like "synchronized_standby_slots"? I haven't read the patch, so I don't know if this name is especially on-point. But "standby_slot_names" seems completely unhelpful, as a server could well have slots that are for standbys but are not to be included in this list. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: