Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
> >> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as suggested by Amit in [1].
> >> I made the changes in the above for the same and attached the updated patch.
> >
> >
> > I agree, validating that list contains valid replication slot names is a good idea.
> > However, you used ReplicationSlotValidateName() function, which is not a good fit for it, especially when it is called with elevel=ERROR in postmaster.
> >
>
> Can you please explain why you think so? And what is your proposal for the same?
>

You are right and I think we should use WARNING here as is used in
check_primary_slot_name() for the same function call. For ERROR
reporting, we need to use GUC_check_* functions. Also, probably the
ERROR during startup could lead to shutdown.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.