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

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 05:05:46AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:04 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 08:58:05AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:49 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Following are some open points:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Where to do inactive_timeout invalidation exactly if not the checkpointer.
> > > >
> > > I have suggested to do it at the time of CheckpointReplicationSlots()
> > > and Bertrand suggested to do it whenever we resume using the slot. I
> > > think we should follow both the suggestions.
> >
> > Agree. I also think that pg_get_replication_slots() would be a good place, so
> > that queries would return the right invalidation status.
> 
> I've addressed review comments and attaching the v13 patches with the
> following changes:

Thanks!

v13-0001 looks good to me. The only Nit (that I've mentioned up-thread) is that
in the pg_replication_slots view, the invalidation_reason is "far away" from the
conflicting field. I understand that one could query the fields individually but
when describing the view or reading the doc, it seems more appropriate to see
them closer. Also as "failover" and "synced" are also new in version 17, there
is no risk to break order by "17,18" kind of queries (which are the failover
and sync positions).

Regards,

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