| From: | surya poondla <suryapoondla4(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2026-03-31 18:16:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAOVWO5om0=6aZUVfOf21m2td8r7QumZrMVh+Eq=jreAyGCfuXw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Ashutosh,
Thanks for addressing my comments in the latest patch. The documentation
additions look correct, and the new Part E test cases in
053_synchronized_standby_slots_quorum.pl exercise the SS_SLOT_LAGGING path
as requested.
I noticed that Shveta caught a behavioral regression between v20260318 and
v20260323 regarding inactive slots that had already caught up being
incorrectly blocked. The fix in v20260326 (splitting into
SS_SLOT_INACTIVE_LAGGING and SS_SLOT_ACTIVE_LAGGING, and counting a slot as
caught up when its restart_lsn >= wait_for_lsn regardless of activity)
looks correct to me.
Overall I feel the patch is in good shape.
Regards,
Surya Poondla
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-03-31 18:21:26 | Re: vectorized CRC on ARM64 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2026-03-31 18:13:20 | Re: Improve pgindent's formatting named fields in struct literals and varidic functions |