On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:39 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:13 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:01:30PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > As far I'm concerned, I did not change my mind since [1] and think the same i.e:
> > go with v2 for HEAD and back-branches.
>
> Agreed too. So I'm going to proceed with backpatching the v2 patch to v16.
>
Pushed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
