On 14.06.25 07:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2025 at 3:11 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 10:42 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> - The <option>--two-phase</option> and <option>--falover</option> options
>>>>> + The <option>--two-phase</option> and <option>--failover</option> options
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the report and the patch! Pushed.
>>>
>>> I wonder if the option name --failover is ideal. To me, it sounds like
>>> an action "do a failover!". Also consider that pg_recvlogical has other
>>> action options such as --start and --create-slot, so it sounds a bit
>>> like those.
>>
>> Fair point.
>>
>>> Maybe something like --enable-failover would be better?
>>
>> Sounds better, but probably the --two-phase option has the same issue?
>>
>
> Ideally, we should change both to maintain consistency across various
> slot options. OTOH, as we have already described these options as: "
> The --two-phase and --failover options can be specified with
> --create-slot.", it is clear that these are slot options. The previous
> version docs have a description: "The --two-phase can be specified
> with --create-slot to enable decoding of prepared transactions." which
> makes it even more clear that the two-phase is a slot option. The
> options are named similarly in pg_create_logical_replication_slot API
> and during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION, so, to some level, there is a
> consistency in naming of these options across all APIs/tools. But,
> their usage in a tool like pg_recvlogical could be perceived
> differently as well, so it is also okay to consider naming them
> differently.
Also note that we have a new pg_createsubscriber --enable-two-phase.
It would be nice if there was more consistency between similar/related
tools.
