Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication

Hi Ajin,

On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 4:47 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 4:16 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Submitting a new version of the patch based on Satya's earlier work - [1].
> >
> > Please take a look and let us know your thoughts.
> >
> > [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHg%2BQDfU7rOebrLDESPpHSgdiadKbpCOmBokcbmM6Gr%2BA5VobQ%40mail.gmail.com
> >
>
> Hi Ashutosh,
>
> I was testing this patch and it seems, if the name of the slots starts
> with first, say firstslot or firstsub, then the patch treats it as
> FIRST 1 priority mode.
>

Thanks for identifying and reporting this - confirmed, it is indeed an
issue. The attached patch addresses it and also adds a regression test
case for the same.

Additionally, it also fixes the issue related to log message reporting
for unavailable/invalid slots that Shveta raised yesterday.

Please take a look and feel free to share any further comments.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.