Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
| От | Muhammad Ikram |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGeimVpZQaGAq408noGytjizgeCWduuLv1bzLtXV0tSEqdVNoQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17 (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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.
Regards,
Muhammad Ikram
Bitnine Global.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:47 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:37:54AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The release notes have this item:
>
> Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized
> before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik)
>
> The new server variable is standby_slot_names.
>
> Is standby_slot_names an accurate name for this GUC? It seems too
> generic.
+1, I was considering bringing this up, too. I'm still thinking of
alternate names to propose, though.
--
nathan
--
Muhammad Ikram
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: