On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 10:53 AM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.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.
