Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LEkFHWHnTP7F9tdgoKC57uRM+UP3J-W2wBhmxsViQ2oQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Agreed, I'm fine with leaving InRecovery in this condition. I think
> > the point is whether we should add StandbyMode to the condition or
> > not. I think if we do that, we would end up with the same error in the
> > above scenario I described. So does the following condition make
> > sense?
> >
> >         if (InRecovery &&
> >             xlrec.wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL &&
> >             wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
> >             InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots(RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL,
> >                                                0, InvalidOid,
> >                                                InvalidTransactionId);
> >
>
> This will still be true for crash-recovery as the InRecovery flag will
> be true for that case as well. I think we should go with your v2 patch
> approach for HEAD and back-branches.
>

Any opinion on how to proceed here?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Shlok Kyal
Date:
Subject: Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: MAX_BACKENDS size (comment accuracy)