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
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 |