| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Date: | 2024-04-06 06:48:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+-ipXB+LuUiDNQ5L+sWJFpzK89k-Oc7xOG37AefrptoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 6, 2024 at 11:55 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
Why the handling w.r.t active_pid in InvalidatePossiblyInactiveSlot()
is not similar to InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot(). Won't we need to
ensure that there is no other active slot user? Is it sufficient to
check inactive_since for the same? If so, we need some comments to
explain the same.
Can we avoid introducing the new functions like
SaveGivenReplicationSlot() and MarkGivenReplicationSlotDirty(), if we
do the required work in the caller?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-04-06 06:55:26 | Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots() |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-04-06 06:38:45 | Re: LogwrtResult contended spinlock |