public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email protected]>
To: Alexander Kukushkin <[email protected]>
Cc: shveta malik <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 02:38:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHg+QDeH0_qPFoPX=ybGJxG9mGcEodz+fsWg7EnRUi=SOCGGHg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFh8B=n0n5Zj0DDSQ9E5cznY85VgU1wwgfpAULaLZpOaNzvv4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHg+QDfU7rOebrLDESPpHSgdiadKbpCOmBokcbmM6Gr+A5VobQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9k0PnP0cPuisVeXM+Bma7n6J+HYqhVO5LffosXuHSw7drEDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9k0Pm_6+4zW-X9zgBHhyLa9dqNKLM=zzUnVeH+ikoh45iALw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1+CNnJ=p4yTXJKDYKLiJQttjCBdJsoioFVyt=JOxH6chA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9k0PkW9pAWofkygh8DpA_Yp_9hwbVhWt=EgVH4Guwgvqo0KQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHg+QDeQ6MLTR7E3RSwwoEXon4z4uo_9P_oum1aGANbi1Go8Qg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJpy0uAMFqLjKMD4h3uuXBGXpGzeUBFQe80RJ9b26YQ3CXZbog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFh8B=n0n5Zj0DDSQ9E5cznY85VgU1wwgfpAULaLZpOaNzvv4w@mail.gmail.com>

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


reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication
  In-Reply-To: <CAHg+QDeH0_qPFoPX=ybGJxG9mGcEodz+fsWg7EnRUi=SOCGGHg@mail.gmail.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox