On 2024-Mar-26, Amit Kapila wrote: > We have a consensus on inactive_since, so I'll make that change.
Sounds reasonable. So this is a timestamptz if the slot is inactive, NULL if active, right? What value is it going to have for sync slots? > I would also like to solicit your opinion on the other slot-level > parameter we are planning to introduce. This new slot-level parameter > will be named as inactive_timeout. Maybe inactivity_timeout? > This will indicate that once the slot is inactive for the > inactive_timeout period, we will invalidate the slot. We are also > discussing to have this parameter (inactive_timeout) as GUC [1]. We > can have this new parameter both at the slot level and as well as a > GUC, or just one of those. replication_slot_inactivity_timeout? -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ Tom: There seems to be something broken here. Teodor: I'm in sackcloth and ashes... Fixed. http://postgr.es/m/482d1632.8010...@sigaev.ru
