| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 15:49:35 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACXcioJrL5aGymQZ08o+KQkCPo_JyZgapz2kNm56dHo5qA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > AFAIR, we don't prevent similar invalidations due to
> > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' for sync slots,
>
> Right, we'd invalidate them on the standby should the standby sync slot restart_lsn
> exceeds the limit.
Right. Help me understand this a bit - is the wal_removed invalidation
going to conflict with recovery on the standby?
Per the discussion upthread, I'm trying to understand what
invalidation reasons will exactly cause conflict with recovery? Is it
just rows_removed and wal_level_insufficient invalidations? My
understanding on the conflict with recovery and invalidation reason
has been a bit off track. Perhaps, we need to clarify these two things
in the docs for the end users as well?
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Maxim Orlov | 2024-03-12 15:50:06 | Re: CI speed improvements for FreeBSD |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-12 15:45:41 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |