On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 5:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@kurilemu.de> wrote: > > On 2025-Jul-09, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > After further consideration, I believe your proposed method is > > > superior to forcing the max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 via a check hook. > > > The ultimate goal is to prevent WAL removal during a binary upgrade, > > > and your approach directly addresses this issue rather than > > > controlling it by forcing the GUC value. I am planning to send a > > > patch using this approach for both max_slot_wal_keep_size as well as > > > for idle_replication_slot_timeout. > > > > PFA, with this approach. > > This indeed makes the whole thing a lot simpler and more direct than the > original code, and solves this subthread's complaint. It's a bit weird > that slot.c and xlog.c now have to worry about IsBinaryUpgrade, but I > don't feel any guilt about that.
Thanks Alvaro for having a look. > I propose a few comment updates on top of your patch. This comment updates LGTM, so included in v3. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
v3-0001-Better-way-to-prevent-wal-removal-and-slot-invali.patch
Description: Binary data
