Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change

I'm okay with that too, as long as the standby doesn't unexpectedly quit.
The patch looks good to me.

Le ven. 25 juil. 2025 à 18:01, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> a écrit :

> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 9:13 PM Hugo DUBOIS <hdubois(at)scaleway(dot)com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if there's a particular use case for wal_level and
> sync_replication_slots not matching on a primary. So, for me, Option 1
> seems correct.
>
> I also prefer option #1.
>
> However, on second thought, if some users are already running a server
> (non-standby) with sync_replication_slots enabled and wal_level != logical
> in v17, switching to option #1 could break their setup after a minor
> version update. That would be surprising and confusing.
>
> To avoid that, I think we should go with option #2—at least for v17.
>
> Attached is an updated patch implementing option #2.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
>