Re: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots docs

On 2025/07/01 13:52, Nisha Moond wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is this true starting from v16, when logical replication from standby was introduced?
>> In other words, in v15 and earlier, only max_slot_wal_keep_size could cause
>> the wal_status to become "unreserved" or "lost"? I'm wondering where to back-patch
>> this fix to.
>>
>
> I also think we should back-patch this till v16, since that’s when
> additional slot invalidation causes were also introduced(commit
> be87200). And since then “max_slot_wal_keep_size” is no longer the
> sole reason for “unreserved” or “lost” status.

Okay, I've prepared two patches:

- 0001 removes the incorrect line: "If restart_lsn is NULL, this field is null."
This should be back-patched to v13.
- 0002 updates the description of the wal_status to reflect that max_slot_wal_keep_size
is not the only cause of the lost state. This should be back-patched to v16.

Barrng objections, I will commit these patches.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation