Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn
Date: 2020-06-30 05:56:50
Message-ID: b495e29a-4131-81f6-7d0d-dcbb51cc5152@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

On 2020/06/25 14:48, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/06/25 10:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>> The document explains that restart_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view is:
>>>
>>>      The address (LSN) of oldest WAL which still might be required by
>>>      the consumer of this slot and thus won't be automatically removed
>>>      during checkpoints.
>>>
>>> But the latter part is not true in v13 thanks to max_slot_wal_keep_size.
>>> I think that we need to update it as follows. Thought?
>>>
>>>      The address (LSN) of oldest WAL which still might be required by
>>>      the consumer of this slot and thus won't be automatically removed
>>>      during checkpoints unless this LSN gets behind more than
>>>      max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN.
>>
>> We just added the invalidated_at LSN to replication slots; while working
>> on the tests for that today, I was thinking that it might be useful to
>> display that LSN in pg_replication_slots.  What do you think of the idea
>> of publishing the invalidated_at LSN in pg_replication_slot.restart_lsn
>> when the slot is invalid?
>
> I like having separate column for invalidated_at because (at least for me)
> it's a bit confusing to report the different meaning values in the same column
> depending on the state.

Is there any other objection to the patch? If nothing, I'd like to push it.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2020-06-30 16:28:07 Re: INDEX with optional storage parameter value
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-06-29 21:46:38 Re: Default setting for enable_hashagg_disk