From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Date: | 2024-03-25 19:54:43 |
Message-ID: | 20240325195443.GA2923888@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I apologize that I haven't been able to keep up with this thread for a
while, but I'm happy to see the continued interest in $SUBJECT.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 03:05:44PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> This commit particularly lets one specify the inactive_timeout for
> a slot via SQL functions pg_create_physical_replication_slot and
> pg_create_logical_replication_slot.
Off-list, Bharath brought to my attention that the current proposal was to
set the timeout at the slot level. While I think that is an entirely
reasonable thing to support, the main use-case I have in mind for this
feature is for an administrator that wants to prevent inactive slots from
causing problems (e.g., transaction ID wraparound) on a server or a number
of servers. For that use-case, I think a GUC would be much more
convenient. Perhaps there could be a default inactive slot timeout GUC
that would be used in the absence of a slot-level setting. Thoughts?
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-03-25 19:58:00 | Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-03-25 19:33:38 | Re: Combine Prune and Freeze records emitted by vacuum |