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

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 2:11 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:44:34PM -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 11:40:00PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 3:41 AM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> Would you ever see "conflict" as false and "invalidation_reason" as
> > >> non-null for a logical slot?
> > >
> > > No. Because both conflict and invalidation_reason are decided based on
> > > the invalidation reason i.e. value of slot_contents.data.invalidated.
> > > IOW, a logical slot that reports conflict as true must have been
> > > invalidated.
> > >
> > > Do you have any thoughts on reverting 007693f and introducing
> > > invalidation_reason?
> >
> > Unless I am misinterpreting some details, ISTM we could rename this column
> > to invalidation_reason and use it for both logical and physical slots. I'm
> > not seeing a strong need for another column.
>
> Yeah having two columns was more for convenience purpose. Without the "conflict"
> one, a slot conflicting with recovery would be "a logical slot having a non NULL
> invalidation_reason".
>
> I'm also fine with one column if most of you prefer that way.

While we debate on the above, please find the attached v7 patch set
after rebasing.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com