Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 05:51:43PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 1:24 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > so why to prevent it for
> > these new parameters? This will unnecessarily create inconsistency in
> > the invalidation behavior.
>
> Yeah, but I think wal removal has a direct impact on the slot usuability which
> is probably not the case with the new XID and Timeout ones.
>

BTW, is XID the based parameter 'max_slot_xid_age' not have similarity
with 'max_slot_wal_keep_size'? I think it will impact the rows we
removed based on xid horizons. Don't we need to consider it while
vacuum computing the xid horizons in ComputeXidHorizons() similar to
what we do for WAL w.r.t 'max_slot_wal_keep_size'?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.