| From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2026-03-26 07:48:43 |
| Message-ID: | CAE9k0PkdS92U5qpKMJDb5XKavJL0OxLjohd2b7Km+1sCt6KE6w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 12:03 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 11:36 AM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Makes sense. The attached patch addresses this too.
> >
> > --
>
> Thanks Ashutosh. I have not yet looked at today's patch, please find a
> few comments from previous one:
>
> 1)
> I noticed a change in behavior compared to the HEAD.
>
> Earlier, inactive slots were considered blocking only if they were
> lagging (restart_lsn < wait_for_lsn). Now, inactive slots are treated
> as blocking regardless of their restart_lsn. I think we should revert
> to the previous behavior. It’s possible for a slot to catch up and
> then become inactive; in such cases, it should still be treated as
> caught up rather than blocking.
>
Oh, absolutely, you're spot on. I will get this (and other things
related to this) fixed in the next patch. Thanks for pointing it out.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lakshmi N | 2026-03-26 08:06:37 | Re: log XLogPrefetch stats at end of recovery |
| Previous Message | Nikhil Chawla | 2026-03-26 07:32:23 | Re: [PATCH] Add prepared_orphaned_transaction_timeout GUC |