MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b81db436-8262-4575-b7c4-bc0c1551000b@app.fastmail.com>
 <a040a1a5-c1a2-4988-ad92-a610ffbf4520@eisentraut.org> <7ccb750a-0169-4965-9bd7-c5a2ef68fbc7@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7ccb750a-0169-4965-9bd7-c5a2ef68fbc7@app.fastmail.com>
From: Keisuke Kuroda <keisuke.kuroda.3862@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:19:29 +0900
Message-ID: <CANDwggK+Hb2JgFGVNpp2gf1cf_eL_72tgOZaKx3Wv_P2kWGsPA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Separate GUC for replication origins
To: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANDwggK%2BHb2JgFGVNpp2gf1cf_eL_72tgOZaKx3Wv_P2kWGsPA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Euler,

As you may have already read, separating the max_replication_slots parameter
is also discussed in the following thread.

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAA4eK1KF4MbyWmPj9ctNo8Fiei%3DK91RGYtzV5ELeCvR%3D_rqNgg%40mail.gmail.com#3012c5c18e40e
21ac553b42d53249e42

I agree with separating the parameters.
I think we need to discuss the names of the parameter.
Parameter names were also discussed in the above thread.
It was suggested to name them 'max_replication_origin_states' or
'max_tracked_replication_origins'.

Personally, I find 'max_replication_origin_states' easier to understand,
although it is a long name.

Best Regards,
Keisuke Kuroda
NTT Comware