Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-06-21T19:50:00Z
Lists: 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



Commits

  1. Update release notes to reflect recent commit 0f934b0739.

  2. Rename standby_slot_names to synchronized_standby_slots.

  3. Add a new slot sync worker to synchronize logical slots.