| From: | Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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: | 2024-11-13 09:35:01 |
| Message-ID: | CABdArM51Fvq_=cVkvdiRO05j6z5rFvtZkc-W=Wn0tjEy1W9Ozg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:22 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
> >
>
> Thanks for addressing comments.
>
> Is there a reason that we don't support this invalidation on hot
> standby for non-synced slots? Shouldn't we support this time-based
> invalidation there too just like other invalidations?
>
I don’t see any reason to *not* support this invalidation on hot
standby for non-synced slots. Therefore, I’ve added the same in v48.
--
Thanks,
Nisha
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-11-13 09:38:27 | Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4 |
| Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-11-13 09:34:36 | Some dead code in get_param_path_clause_serials() |