On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 10:41 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 3:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Can we think of using GetStandbyFlushRecPtr()? We probably need to > > expose this function, if this works for the required purpose. > > GetStandbyFlushRecPtr() seems good. But do we really want to raise an > ERROR in this case? IIUC this case could happen often when the slot > used by the standby is not listed in standby_slot_names. >
or it can be due to some bug in the code as well. > I think we > can just skip such a slot to synchronize and check it the next time. > How about logging the message and then skipping the sync step? This will at least make users aware that they could be missing to set standby_slot_names. > Here are random comments on slotsyncworker.c (v66): > > +/* GUC variable */ > +bool enable_syncslot = false; > > Is enable_syncslot a really good name? We use "enable" prefix only for > planner parameters such as enable_seqscan, and it seems to me that > "slot" is not specific. Other candidates are: > > * synchronize_replication_slots = on|off > * synchronize_failover_slots = on|off > I would prefer the second one. Would it be better to just say sync_failover_slots? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
