Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bharath Rupireddy
Subject Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Date
Msg-id CALj2ACUH7XaDzByR1c8iYZFvOgO1R02otm3PSZUgUNiw94n7Lw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would that make sense to "simply" discard/prevent those kind of invalidations
> > for "synced" slot on standby? I mean, do they make sense given the fact that
> > those slots are not usable until the standby is promoted?
>
> AFAIR, we don't prevent similar invalidations due to
> 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' for sync slots, so why to prevent it for
> these new parameters? This will unnecessarily create inconsistency in
> the invalidation behavior.

Right. +1 to keep the behaviour consistent for all invalidations.
However, an assertion that inactive_timeout isn't set for synced slots
on the standby isn't a bad idea because we rely on the fact that
walsenders aren't started for synced slots. Again, I think it misses
the consistency in the invalidation behaviour.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: UUID v7
Next
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel