Horton

Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-06-25T08:32:09Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > So, my
> > preference is in order as follows: synchronized_standby_slots,
> > wait_for_standby_slots, logical_replication_wait_slots,
> > logical_replication_synchronous_slots, and
> > logical_replication_synchronous_standby_slots.
>
> I also prefer synchronized_standby_slots.
>
> From a different angle just for discussion, is it worth considering
> the term 'failover' since the purpose of this feature is to ensure a
> standby to be ready for failover in terms of logical replication? For
> example, failover_standby_slot_names?
>

I feel synchronized better indicates the purpose because we ensure
such slots are synchronized before we process changes for logical
failover slots. We already have a 'failover' option for logical slots
which could make things confusing if we add 'failover' where physical
slots need to be specified.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

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.