On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:38 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 11:24 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 2:43 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* 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? > > > > > > Works for me. But if we want to extend this option for non-failover > > > slots as well in the future, synchronize_replication_slots (or > > > sync_replication_slots) seems better. We can extend it by having an > > > enum later. For example, the values can be on, off, or failover etc. > > > > > > > I see your point. Let us see if others have any suggestions on this. > > 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 do not think we should support sync of "all kinds of supported slots" in the first version. Maybe we can think about it for future versions. thanks Shveta
