| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Date: | 2024-03-27 05:25:29 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uCbdVwybRsj0EtQtcPRXjPsNWZHdm66EY31ke+FJ5HZRQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 6:05 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > We can think on that later if we really need another
> > field which give us sync time.
>
> I think that calling GetCurrentTimestamp() so frequently could be too costly, so
> I'm not sure we should.
Agreed.
> > In my second approach, I have tried to
> > avoid updating inactive_since for synced slots during sync process. We
> > update that field during creation of synced slot so that
> > inactive_since reflects correct info even for synced slots (rather
> > than copying from primary).
>
> Yeah, and I think we could create a dedicated field with this information
> if we feel the need.
Okay.
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-27 05:28:19 | Re: Why is parula failing? |
| Previous Message | Will Mortensen | 2024-03-27 05:16:47 | Re: Exposing the lock manager's WaitForLockers() to SQL |