Hi, On 2023-04-24 14:36:36 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2023-Apr-22, Andres Freund wrote: > > I'm afraid we'll need TransactionIdRetreatSafely() again, when we convert > > more > > things to 64bit xids (lest they end up with the same bug as fixed by > > be504a3e974), so it's perhaps worth thinking about how to make it less > > confusing. > > The one thing that IMO makes it less confusing is to have it return the > value rather than modifying it in place.
Partially I made it that way because you otherwise end up repeating long variable names multiple times within one statement, yielding long repetitive lines... Not sure that's a good enough reason, but ... > > > <para> > > > Replication slots overcome these disadvantages by retaining only the > > > number > > > of segments known to be needed. > > > On the other hand, replication slots can retain so > > > many WAL segments that they fill up the space allocated > > > for <literal>pg_wal</literal>; > > > <xref linkend="guc-max-slot-wal-keep-size"/> limits the size of WAL > > > files > > > retained by replication slots. > > > </para> > > > > It seems a bit confusing now, because "by retaining only the number of > > segments ..." now also should cover hs_feedback (due to merging), but > > doesn't. > > Hah, ok. > > > I think I'll push the version I had. Then we can separately word-smith the > > section? Unless somebody protests I'm gonna do that soon. > > No objection. Cool. Pushed now.
