Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:24 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +/* GUC variable */
> > > +bool       enable_syncslot = false;
> > >
> > > Is enable_syncslot a really good name? We use "enable" prefix only for
> > > planner parameters such as enable_seqscan, and it seems to me that
> > > "slot" is not specific. Other candidates are:
> > >
> > > * synchronize_replication_slots = on|off
> > > * synchronize_failover_slots = on|off
> > >
> >
> > I would prefer the second one. Would it be better to just say
> > sync_failover_slots?
>
> Works for me. But if we want to extend this option for non-failover
> slots as well in the future, synchronize_replication_slots (or
> sync_replication_slots) seems better. We can extend it by having an
> enum later. For example, the values can be on, off, or failover etc.
>

I see your point. Let us see if others have any suggestions on this.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.