Hi, On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:48:38AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 4:45 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:46:00AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > > > > Besides, I'd like to clarify and discuss the behavior of > > > standby_slot_names once. > > > > > > As it stands in the patch, If the slots specified in standby_slot_names > > > are > > > dropped or invalidated, the logical walsender will issue a WARNING and > > > continue > > > to replicate the changes. Another option for this could be to have the > > > walsender pause until the slot in standby_slot_names is re-created or > > > becomes > > > valid again. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter ? > > > > Good point, I'd vote for: the only reasons not to wait are: > > > > - slots mentioned in standby_slot_names exist and valid and do catch up > > or > > - standby_slot_names is empty > > > > The reason is that setting standby_slot_names to a non empty value means > > that > > one wants the walsender to wait until the standby catchup. The way to > > remove this > > intentional behavior should be by changing the standby_slot_names value > > (not the > > existence or the state of the slot(s) it points too). > > > > It seems we already do wait for the case when there is an inactive > slot as per the below code [1] in the patch. So, probably waiting in > other cases is also okay and also as this parameter is a SIGHUP > parameter, users should be easily able to change its value if > required.
Agree. > Do you think it is a good idea to mention this in docs as > well? Yeah, I think the more the better. > I think it is important to raise WARNING as the patch is doing in all > the cases where the slot is not being processed so that users can be > notified and they can take the required action. +1 Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
