| From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2026-02-26 09:29:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAFh8B=n0n5Zj0DDSQ9E5cznY85VgU1wwgfpAULaLZpOaNzvv4w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 at 09:45, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> As suggested in [1], IMO, it is a reasonably good idea for
> 'synchronized_standby_slots' to DEFAULT to the value of
> 'synchronous_standby_names'. That way, even if the user missed to
> configure 'synchronized_standby_slots' explicitly, we would still have
> reasonable protection in place.
Hmm.
synchronous_standby_names contains application_names,
while synchronized_standby_slots contains names of physical replication
slots.
These are two different things, and in fact sync replication doesn't even
require to use replication slots.
What is worse, even when all standbys use physical replication slots there
is no guarantee that values in synchronous_standby_names will match
physical slot names.
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2026-02-26 09:38:33 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |
| Previous Message | Jakub Wartak | 2026-02-26 09:25:47 | Re: Add errdetail() with PID and UID about source of termination signal |