On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 13:19, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 09:36, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 9:05 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As Ashutosh suggests I will go more for the backpatching approach because the synchronized_standby_slots
parameterimpacts the last 2 major versions and this problem is critical on production environments.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Let's wait for the related issue being discussed in email
> > > [1] to be fixed.
> > >
> >
> > As the other patch is committed
> > (f33e60a53a9ca89b5078df49416acae20affe1f5), can you update and prepare
> > backbranch patches for this fix as well?
> >
> Hi Amit,
>
> Please find the updated patch.
>
> v6-0001 : It applies on HEAD and REL_18_STABLE branches
> v6_REL_17-0001 : It applies on REL_17_STABLE branch.
>
> Since this GUC was introduced in PG_17, we do not need to back-patch
> to PG_16 or prior.
>
The CFbot was failing due to the merge conflict. It happened because
CFbot tried to apply v6_REL_17 on top of v6-0001 patch. Added
v6_REL_17 as a .txt file so this merge conflict do not happen.
Thanks,
Shlok Kyal
