MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAJpy0uBT8JbEGE0xvm-Wxh1g_VVgC=whKqChZo-uB+VOa_YCTw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9k0Pkk6q72X3Rc3MUo7PxU46UcCzLfMhM02PGDUmAue9cDGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB17718104B91F2945BE727467694102@TY4PR01MB17718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAE9k0P=dgCEaKE6+vSCQp8TgrYOi_RqQkDTScdWzFSECsPQn9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <TY4PR01MB17718F364B2CB8108B34FA5FC94112@TY4PR01MB17718.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAJpy0uCnasi4MSQB=nrjPSv4U_0rb2Z-cg_wazUGQ-P_VnRZeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JLwL_aauy+nrrobC3Sftv369N3N6DaidBpNJdiOwXG+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1JLwL_aauy+nrrobC3Sftv369N3N6DaidBpNJdiOwXG+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:15:52 +0530
Message-ID: 
 <CAJpy0uBR-8-d__LgfqqUbFvLBvzL6bY_kjUmBWAVsLLu1QZEPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with
 quorum-based synchronous replication
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
 Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
 Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>,
	SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uBR-8-d__LgfqqUbFvLBvzL6bY_kjUmBWAVsLLu1QZEPA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Please find a few comments on June8 version fo patches:

1)
patch001:

SYNC_REP_DEFAULT: do we need to give one-line comment for this
somewhere as unlike PRIORITY and QUORUM, it is not self-explanatory.


patch002:
2)
It is better to avoid mentioning it as 'synchronized standby slots'.
We can make it as 'synchronized_standby_slots' in below comments:

+ /* Parse the synchronized standby slots configuration */

+ * Report problem states for synchronized standby slots that prevented the

3)
For these error-messages too, we  need to mention GUC name to give
better clarity.

+ GUC_check_errmsg("number of synchronized standby slots (%d) must not
exceed the number of unique listed slots (%d)",
+ syncrep_parse_result->num_sync,
+ syncrep_parse_result->nmembers);


How about:
GUC_check_errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE);
GUC_check_errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\: synchronization
requirement (%d) exceeds the number of unique listed slots (%d)",
                 "synchronized_standby_slots",
                 syncrep_parse_result->num_sync,
                 syncrep_parse_result->nmembers);

Or
GUC_check_errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\: required number
of synchronized standby slots (%d) exceeds the number of unique listed
slots (%d)",
                 "synchronized_standby_slots",
                 syncrep_parse_result->num_sync,
                 syncrep_parse_result->nmembers);

3)
+ GUC_check_errmsg("number of synchronized standby slots (%d) must be
greater than zero",
+ syncrep_parse_result->num_sync)

How about:
GUC_check_errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE);
GUC_check_errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\: required number
of synchronized standby slots (%d) must be greater than zero",
                 "synchronized_standby_slots",
                 syncrep_parse_result->num_sync);


---

Or, better yet, we can split the messages and details for both, example:

GUC_check_errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE);
GUC_check_errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\",
"synchronized_standby_slots");
GUC_check_errdetail("The required number of synchronized standby slots
(%d) exceeds the number of unique listed slots (%d)",
                     syncrep_parse_result->num_sync,
                    syncrep_parse_result->nmembers);)


4)
+ReportUnavailableSyncStandbySlots(SyncStandbySlotsStateInfo * slot_states

We can get rid of space before slot_states. I think pgindent might
have put it in my patch. Sorry for the trouble.

5)
003:
- wait_for_all = (required == synchronized_standby_slots_config->nslotnames);
+ wait_for_all =
+ (synchronized_standby_slots_config->syncrep_method == SYNC_REP_DEFAULT);

This change can be moved to 002, right?

thanks
Shveta