On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 05:59, Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 8:47 AM, vignesh C wrote:
>
> I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an
> agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs
> updates and extensive testing, especially considering its impact on
> backward compatibility. I'm unsure if this feature can be committed in
> the current CommitFest. If you're okay with it, we can move it to the
> next CommitFest. However, if you prefer to keep it, we can do our best
> to complete it and make a final decision at the end of the CommitFest.
>
>
> This is a mechanical patch. I was waiting if someone would object or suggest a
> better GUC name. It seems to me it isn't. The pre existing GUC
> (max_replication_slots) already has coverage. I don't know what additional
> tests you have in mind. Could you elaborate?
I was considering any potential impact on pg_upgrade and
pg_createsubscriber. I will run tests with the latest posted patch to
verify.
> I'm biased to say that it is one of the easiest patches to commit because it is
> just assigning a new GUC name for a pre existing functionality. If there is no
> interested in it, it will be moved to the next CF.
Sounds like a plan! Let's verify it and work towards getting it committed.
Regards,
Vignesh
