Hi,
On 6/29/23 12:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:19 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yeah, I think once the slot is dropped we just have to wait for the slot to
>> be re-created on the standby according to the new synchronize_slot_names GUC.
>>
>> Assuming the initial slot "creation" on the standby (coming from the synchronize_slot_names usage)
>> is working "correctly" then it should also work "correctly" once the slot is dropped.
>>
>
> I also think so.
>
>> If we agree that a synchronized slot can not/should not be consumed (will implement this behavior) then
>> I think the proposed scenario above should make sense, do you agree?
>>
>
> Yeah, I also can't think of a use case for this. So, we can probably
> disallow it and document the same. I guess if we came across a use
> case for this, we can rethink allowing to consume the changes from
> synchronized slots.
Yeah agree, I'll work on a new version that deals with invalidated slot that way and
that ensures that a synchronized slot can't be consumed (until the standby gets promoted).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
