| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Date: | 2024-03-12 15:44:40 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACUH7XaDzByR1c8iYZFvOgO1R02otm3PSZUgUNiw94n7Lw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Would that make sense to "simply" discard/prevent those kind of invalidations
> > for "synced" slot on standby? I mean, do they make sense given the fact that
> > those slots are not usable until the standby is promoted?
>
> AFAIR, we don't prevent similar invalidations due to
> 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' for sync slots, so why to prevent it for
> these new parameters? This will unnecessarily create inconsistency in
> the invalidation behavior.
Right. +1 to keep the behaviour consistent for all invalidations.
However, an assertion that inactive_timeout isn't set for synced slots
on the standby isn't a bad idea because we rely on the fact that
walsenders aren't started for synced slots. Again, I think it misses
the consistency in the invalidation behaviour.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-12 15:45:41 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-12 15:41:10 | Re: UUID v7 |