| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing |
| Date: | 2018-07-04 01:57:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20180704015731.GE1672@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 01:51:48PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2018-Jul-03, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Fair enough, but that's what a plain slot allows you as well, pretty
>> fundamentally, no? The precise point at which recycling will be blocked
>> will differer, sure.
ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN() is careful enough to discard slots
which have their restart_lsn set to InvalidXLogRecPtr, so they are not
accounted within the minimum LSN calculated for segment retention. Any
fake value added by a user advancing a non-reserved slot is.
At the end, are their any objections into fixing the issue and
tightening the advancing API?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2018-07-04 02:00:46 | Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled. |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2018-07-04 01:55:21 | Re: pgsql: Clarify use of temporary tables within partition trees |