| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hugo DUBOIS <hdubois(at)scaleway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change |
| Date: | 2025-07-25 16:01:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHDSah34mkPtN12ZW09K9Ti8KmpCPEpaJgJmo2XrnGC7A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
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
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Avoid-unexpected-shutdown-when-sync_replication_s.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hugo DUBOIS | 2025-07-25 16:21:36 | Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-07-25 15:20:47 | Re: BUG #18999: Equivalent queries processing WHERE IS NULL & WHERE IS NOT NULL produce mutually exclusive results |