| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Date: | 2024-02-02 08:10:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Ldt7oTvJDHKfHVa+=qOSOchqP6srV0vZ5GWVerSznKjg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 04:12:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:26 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, I think this is a good point.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I agree and "on"/"off" looks enough to me now. As far the GUC name I've the
> feeling that "replication" should be part of it, and think that sync_replication_slots
> is fine. The reason behind is that "sync_slots" could be confusing if in the
> future other kind of "slot" (other than replication ones) are added in the engine.
>
+1 for sync_replication_slots with values as 'on'/'off'.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2024-02-02 08:16:11 | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-02-02 08:04:28 | Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations |