Horton

Re: New standby_slot_names GUC in PG 17

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Muhammad Ikram <mmikram@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-06-21T20:19:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 03:50:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>> 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"?

IMHO that might be a bit too close to synchronous_standby_names.  But the
name might not be the only issue, as there is a separate proposal [0] to
add _another_ GUC to tie standby_slot_names to synchronous replication.  I
wonder if this could just be a Boolean parameter or if folks really have
use-cases for both a list of synchronous standbys and a separate list of
synchronous standbys for failover slots.

[0] https://postgr.es/m/CA%2B-JvFtq6f7%2BwAwSdud-x0yMTeMejUhpkyid1Xa_VNpRd_-oPw%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
nathan

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.