| From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: | 2024-03-21 10:43:31 |
| Message-ID: | CALj2ACUyZz5cj0ViD6ksivnVJ+3aM6iT3uTg8vNgUYEbNEz+xQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 3:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > My concern was that we set catalog_xmin at logical slot creation time. So if we
> > set last_inactive_at to zero at creation time and the slot is not used for a long
> > period of time > timeout, then I think it's not helping there.
>
> But, we do call ReplicationSlotRelease() after slot creation. For
> example, see CreateReplicationSlot(). So wouldn't that take care of
> the case you are worried about?
Right. That's true even for pg_create_physical_replication_slot and
pg_create_logical_replication_slot. AFAICS, setting it to the current
timestamp in ReplicationSlotRelease suffices unless I'm missing
something.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2024-03-21 10:48:35 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-21 10:31:17 | Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code |