On 2020/06/30 14:56, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Pushed. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
