Hi, On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:02:11PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:30 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 03:56:23PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > > > That would avoid testing twice "slot->data.persistency == > > > > RS_PERSISTENT". > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like a good idea. Also, don't we need to consider physical > > > slots where we don't reserve WAL during slot creation? I don't think > > > there is a need to set inactive_at for such slots. > > > > If the slot is not active, why shouldn't we set inactive_at? I can > > understand > > that such a slots do not present "any risks" but I think we should still set > > inactive_at (also to not give the false impression that the slot is active). > > > > But OTOH, there is a chance that we will invalidate such slots even > though they have never reserved WAL in the first place which doesn't > appear to be a good thing.
That's right but I don't think it is not a good thing. I think we should treat inactive_at as an independent field (like if the timeout one does not exist at all) and just focus on its meaning (slot being inactive). If one sets a timeout (> 0) and gets an invalidation then I think it works as designed (even if the slot does not present any "risk" as it does not hold any rows or WAL). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
