On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 12:14:15PM -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Patch applied. I can keep improving it as we get more ideas.
>
> I'm rather baffled by the process here. You pushed a patch, without any
> review, which also wasn't previously posted publicly, that made things
> worse. Then, after you got pushback on that change, you posted another patch,
> that got mildly negative feedback. Then you also pushed that change.
Well, we talked privately on chat and I gave my reasons why I thought
the additional detail was helpful. When you stopped replying, I thought
that meant you were happy with the change, or had no ideas for
improvement. Obviously my assumption was wrong. As I stated, I am open
to continue improving it.
To reiterate what I said on private chat, our only docs about
replication slots are here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/warm-standby.html#STREAMING-REPLICATION-SLOTS
It mostly talks about retaining WAL, and I cleaned that up to specify
the cases where only physical replication was involved. (You can see
yesterday's commits in the output.) Logical replication does more than
just retain WAL, and since we were only referencing the above
WAL-retention chapter from the subscription chapter:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/warm-standby.html#STREAMING-REPLICATION-SLOTS
I added a mention of "track relevant transaction activity". If that is
wrong, what is the right wording that adds details beyond WAL retention?
I personally was confused about replication slots, so I assumed these
changes will help others.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
