Re: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots docs

From: Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots docs
Date: 2025-06-26 06:46:06
Message-ID: CABdArM5r8wD8w1dTMh+ozXZw5TbiWRYHzrc2tCy6PNOsffHvLA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 9:56 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The pg_replication_slots documentation mentions only max_slot_wal_keep_size
> as a condition under which the wal_status column can show unreserved or lost.
> However, since commit ac0e33136ab, idle_replication_slot_timeout can also
> cause this behavior when it is set. This has not been documented yet.
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/view-pg-replication-slots.html
>

+1 to the doc update.

> So, how about updating the documentation to also mention
> idle_replication_slot_timeout as a factor that can cause wal_status to
> become unreserved or lost? Patch attached.
>

Since idle_replication_slot_timeout can only cause wal_status to
become 'lost' and not 'unreserved', perhaps we can reword the sentence
slightly for clarity, suggestion -
"The last two states are seen when max_slot_wal_keep_size is
non-negative and, the 'lost' state may also appear when
idle_replication_slot_timeout is greater than zero."

Please feel free to rephrase if needed.

--
Thanks,
Nisha

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2025-06-26 07:55:26 Re: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots docs
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2025-06-26 06:43:16 RE: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots docs