On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, at 8:33 AM, Ahmed Et-tanany wrote: > > I find the idea of a reserved_replication_slots parameter > interesting. However, I'm thinking about the amount of additional > semantics we'd need to introduce to properly manage slot ownership, > since we currently don't have the concept of a role specifically > reserving or owning a replication slot. >
If the role credentials are valid and the role has REPLICATION privilege, it can use any replication slots. The proposal is an extra requirement to allow the role to use a reserved pool of replication slots. I don't think the resource (replication slot) needs ownership and privileges for a fine-grained control. > It seems to me we'd either keep it simple and focus on just limiting > the number of logical slots, or explore the role-based reservation > idea more in-depth. > As Fujii said I'm afraid we also need another GUC (for WAL senders) since X active replication slots implies at least X walsenders. In order to guarantee there won't be physical replication interruption, you also need to guarantee that there will be a walsender available. -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
