On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:04 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bertrand, Amit,
>
> > > I do prefer v5-PG17-2 as it is "closer" to HEAD. That said, I think that we should
> > > keep the slots active and only avoid doing the checks for them (they are
> > invalidated
> > > that's fine, they are not that's fine too).
> > >
> >
> > I don't mind doing that, but there is no benefit in making slots
> > active unless we can validate them. And we will end up adding some
> > more checks, as in function check_slots_conflict_reason without any
> > advantage. I feel Kuroda-San's second patch is simple, and we have
> > fewer chances to make mistakes and easy to maintain in the future as
> > well.
>
> I have concerns for Bertrand's patch that it could introduce another timing
> issue. E.g., if the activated slots are not invalidated, dropping slots is keep
> being activated so the dropping might be fail. I did not reproduce this but
> something like this can happen if we activate slots.
>
> Attached patch has a conclusion of these discussions, slots are created but
> it seldomly be activated.
>
> Naming of patches are bit different, but please ignore...
>
Isn't patch 0001-Fix-invalid-referring-of-hash-ref-for-replication-sl
unrelated to this thread? Or am, I missing something?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
