Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:26 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 04:09:15PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:38 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I also see Sawada-San's point and I'd vote for "sync_replication_slots". Then for
> > > the current feature I think "failover" and "on" should be the values to turn the
> > > feature on (assuming "on" would mean "all kind of supported slots").
> >
> > Even if others agree and we change this GUC name to
> > "sync_replication_slots", I feel we should keep the values as "on" and
> > "off" currently, where "on" would mean 'sync failover slots' (docs can
> > state that clearly).
>
> I gave more thoughts on it and I think the values should only be "failover" or
> "off".
>
> The reason is that if we allow "on" and change the "on" behavior in future
> versions (to support more than failover slots) then that would change the behavior
> for the ones that used "on".
>

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.
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.

Thoughts?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.