Re: Checkpoint replication slots later

From: Hüseyin Demir <huseyin(dot)d3r(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint replication slots later
Date: 2026-08-02 10:15:29
Message-ID: CAB5wL7bfJk+GxBw8yfVHOk6f3Va5-cmpZyetoPg3zGozX7CcFA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

v3 has been showing "needs rebase" on cfbot for 3 weeks. Cfbot just
can't read v3 as a patch because it's missing some standard
formatting.

Attached is v4: same code as v3, no changes, just regenerated so cfbot
can apply it.

Regards,
Demir.

> > I revisited the CheckPointSnapBuild() and
> > CheckPointLogicalRewriteHeap(). Both functions work idempotently and
> > are safe to move after CheckPointReplicationSlots(). They benefit from
> > the updated last_saved_restart_lsn computed in the current checkpoint
> > cycle, enabling more accurate cleanup decisions.
> >
> > I ran regression testing comparing the baseline (master) version with
> > the patched version:
> >
> > - Checkpoint duration: No change.
> > - WAL retention: More accurate, because it uses the current
> > replication slot state.
> > - Regressions: None detected.
> > - Dependencies: No new dependencies introduced.
> >
> > Please see the v2 as attached but we can also commit the v1 since the
> > only difference is the order of CheckPointSnapBuild and
> > CheckPointLogicalRewriteHeap working idempotently.
>
> Rebased it against the head.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Checkpoint-replication-slots-late-in-the-cycle.patch application/octet-stream 2.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2026-08-02 10:26:30 Re: Fix a host of strto*() bugs
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2026-08-02 07:55:11 Re: GiST multirange index scans can fail to return rows