| From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots |
| Date: | 2025-09-10 11:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | CAFh8B=mvArv+=JtvNdx-KnddoMo_x02ZuO093+sT5WT7PZPooA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as suggested by Amit in [1].
> I made the changes in the above for the same and attached the updated
> patch.
I agree, validating that list contains valid replication slot names is a
good idea.
However, you used ReplicationSlotValidateName() function, which is not a
good fit for it, especially when it is called with elevel=ERROR in
postmaster.
--
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-09-10 11:54:08 | Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-09-10 11:51:04 | Re: NOT NULL NOT ENFORCED |