On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:11 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 at 17:47, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 5:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2025-Jul-09, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > After further consideration, I believe your proposed method is
> > > > > > superior to forcing the max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 via a check hook.
> > > > > > The ultimate goal is to prevent WAL removal during a binary upgrade,
> > > > > > and your approach directly addresses this issue rather than
> > > > > > controlling it by forcing the GUC value. I am planning to send a
> > > > > > patch using this approach for both max_slot_wal_keep_size as well as
> > > > > > for idle_replication_slot_timeout.
> > > > >
> > > > > PFA, with this approach.
> > > >
> > > > This indeed makes the whole thing a lot simpler and more direct than the
> > > > original code, and solves this subthread's complaint. It's a bit weird
> > > > that slot.c and xlog.c now have to worry about IsBinaryUpgrade, but I
> > > > don't feel any guilt about that.
> > >
> > > Thanks Alvaro for having a look.
> > >
> > > > I propose a few comment updates on top of your patch.
> > >
> > > This comment updates LGTM, so included in v3.
> >
> > The patch does not apply on the PG17 branch where the original issue
> > was reported. I felt we should backbranch this up to PG17 where this
> > was added.
>
> Right, it should be backported till 17, I will work on the patch and
> send it soon. Thanks for reporting.
>
PFA, patch for v17.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google