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 CALj2ACXcioJrL5aGymQZ08o+KQkCPo_JyZgapz2kNm56dHo5qA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation  (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AFAIR, we don't prevent similar invalidations due to
> > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' for sync slots,
>
> Right, we'd invalidate them on the standby should the standby sync slot restart_lsn
> exceeds the limit.

Right. Help me understand this a bit - is the wal_removed invalidation
going to conflict with recovery on the standby?

Per the discussion upthread, I'm trying to understand what
invalidation reasons will exactly cause conflict with recovery? Is it
just rows_removed and wal_level_insufficient invalidations? My
understanding on the conflict with recovery and invalidation reason
has been a bit off track. Perhaps, we need to clarify these two things
in the docs for the end users as well?

--
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: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel
Next
From: Maxim Orlov
Date:
Subject: Re: CI speed improvements for FreeBSD