Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication

From: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: 2026-03-12 11:17:31
Message-ID: CAFPTHDbrJJtaR4Jf2HNOZQVyBLJF-kq8kk=FvmeZ1rfU+Y3R5g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

I tested with this:
synchronized_standby_slots = 'firstsub1, firstsub2'

regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Yura Sokolov 2026-03-12 11:25:17 Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record
Previous Message Eduard Stepanov 2026-03-12 11:13:38 Re: BUG: ReadStream look-ahead exhausts local buffers when effective_io_concurrency>=64