On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:12:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:26 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> >
> > I again thought on this point and feel that even if we start to sync
> > say physical slots their purpose would also be to allow
> > failover/switchover, otherwise, there is no use of syncing the slots.
>
> Yeah, I think this is a good point.
>
> > So, by that theory, we can just go for naming it as
> > sync_failover_slots or simply sync_slots with values 'off' and 'on'.
> > Now, if these are used for switchover then there is an argument that
> > adding 'failover' in the GUC name could be confusing but I feel
> > 'failover' is used widely enough that it shouldn't be a problem for
> > users to understand, otherwise, we can go with simple name like
> > sync_slots as well.
> >
>
> I agree and "on"/"off" looks enough to me now. As far the GUC name I've the
> feeling that "replication" should be part of it, and think that sync_replication_slots
> is fine. The reason behind is that "sync_slots" could be confusing if in the
> future other kind of "slot" (other than replication ones) are added in the engine.
>
+1 for sync_replication_slots with values as 'on'/'off'.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.