| From: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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: | 2024-09-09 04:58:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAJpy0uDG203d9x_+B56XE-7qB9g7mR8PGP9VL+LrGz94PZZU3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:26 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 9:17 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > We should not allow the invalid replication slot to be altered
> > > irrespective of the reason unless there is any benefit.
> >
> > Okay, then I think we need to change the existing behaviour of the
> > other invalidation causes which still allow alter-slot.
>
> +1. Perhaps, track it in a separate thread?
I think so. It does not come under the scope of this thread.
thanks
Shveta
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shlok Kyal | 2024-09-09 05:11:36 | Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-09-09 04:56:17 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |