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

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(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 04:58:31
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LG+2S7SdJdfbwbPOyKdMU41oZPEaS5OQoo7navT0ER_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> Such a test looks reasonable but shall we add equal to in the second
> part of the test (like '$last_inactive_time'::timestamptz >=
> > '$slot_creation_time'::timestamptz;). This is just to be sure that even if the test ran fast enough to give the same time, the test shouldn't fail. I think it won't matter for correctness as well.
>

Apart from this, I have made minor changes in the comments. See and
let me know what you think of attached.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v18_0001_diff_amit.patch.txt text/plain 5.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message jian he 2024-03-25 05:00:00 Re: Improve readability by using designated initializers when possible
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2024-03-25 04:18:23 Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation