Hi, A humble input, as on primary we have #primary_slot_name = '' then should not it be okay to have standby_slot_names or standby_slot_name ? It seems consistent with the Guc on primary.
Another suggestion is *standby_replication_slots*. Regards, Muhammad Ikram Bitnine Global. On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:47 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:37:54AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > The release notes have this item: > > > > Allow specification of physical standbys that must be synchronized > > before they are visible to subscribers (Hou Zhijie, Shveta Malik) > > > > The new server variable is standby_slot_names. > > > > Is standby_slot_names an accurate name for this GUC? It seems too > > generic. > > +1, I was considering bringing this up, too. I'm still thinking of > alternate names to propose, though. > > -- > nathan > > > -- Muhammad Ikram
