Hi Alexnader, On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 1:29 AM Alexander Kukushkin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 at 09:45, shveta malik <[email protected]> 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 > That's right, thanks for reminding me. I am convinced that we can't use the defaults of synchronous_standby_names for synchronized_standby_slots. What do you think about the rest of the proposal? Thanks, Satya
