Rename synchronous_standby_names?

Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com> writes:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

I could get behind renaming it to synchronous_standby_config ...

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would
leave it as is.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
it as is.

​+1
​
David J.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
it as is.

+1

+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.
-- 
Michael

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
it as is.

+1

+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.

+1

--
Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
it as is.

+1

+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.

We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica.

I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave it
as is.

+1, emphatically.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

At Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:52:31 +0200, Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote in <5751454F.6020607@2ndquadrant.fr>

On 01/06/16 02:49, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:56 AM, David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

On 5/31/16 1:47 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:

Are we going to change synchronous_standby_names? Certainly the GUC is
not *only* a list of names anymore.

synchronous_standby_config?
synchronous_standbys (adjust to correct english if necesary)?

If the existing values are still going to be accepted, then I would leave
it as is.

+1

+1. We've made quite a lot of deal to take an approach for the N-sync
that is 100% backward-compatible, it would be good to not break that
effort.

FWIW, +1 from me.

We could always accept it like we do for archive/hot_standby->replica.

I like synchronous_standby_config, so I vote for changing it.

synchronous_standby_names is wantedly designed so as to accept
the old format. This is of couse for backward compatibility and
not to add new GUC variable needlessly.

And, I suppose that changing the domain of a GUC and changing
(only) the name of the varialbe is a bit different things and the
latter seems to me to have somewhat larger impact for users.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers