On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 12:00, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>>
>>
>> BTW, we should also try to conclude on my yesterday's point as to why
>> it is okay to have the same behavior for default_tablespace and
>> default_table_access_method and not for this parameter? I am asking
>> because if we ch
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:39 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
> I agree. For synchronized_standby_slots, I think it is acceptable to report
> only
> parsing errors, because slots could be dropped even after validating the slot
> existence during GUC loading. Additionally, we would report WARNINGs fo
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:56 PM Alexander Kukushkin wrote:
>
> Recently we also hit this problem.
>
> I think in a current state check_synchronized_standby_slots() and
> validate_sync_standby_slots() functions are not very useful:
> - When the hook is executed from postmaster it only checks that
On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 15:33, Rahila Syed wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>> As for the synchronized_standby_slots, we can follow the behavior
>> similar to check_synchronous_standby_names and just give parsing
>> ERRORs. Any non-existent slot related errors can be given when that
>> parameter is later used.
Hi,
>
> BTW, we should also try to conclude on my yesterday's point as to why
> it is okay to have the same behavior for default_tablespace and
> default_table_access_method and not for this parameter? I am asking
> because if we change the current behavior, tomorrow, we can get
> complaints tha
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 11:00 AM Shlok Kyal
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 09:20, Amit Kapila
wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexander Kukushkin <
cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 a
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 11:07 AM Ashutosh Sharma
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 11:00 AM Shlok Kyal
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 09:20, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexande
On Thu, 11 Sept 2025 at 09:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexander Kukushkin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I think we should also add a parsing
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:02 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexander Kukushkin
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
> >> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM Alexander Kukushkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>>
>> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
>> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as suggested by Amit in [1].
>> I made the changes in the above for the
Hi,
As for the synchronized_standby_slots, we can follow the behavior
> similar to check_synchronous_standby_names and just give parsing
> ERRORs. Any non-existent slot related errors can be given when that
> parameter is later used.
>
> --
>
Please find attached a patch that implements this. I
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal wrote:
> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as suggested by Amit in [1].
> I made the changes in the above for the same and attached the updated
> patch.
I agree, validating th
On Tuesday, September 9, 2025 1:30 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:56 PM Alexander Kukushkin
> wrote:
> >
> > Recently we also hit this problem.
> >
> > I think in a current state check_synchronized_standby_slots() and
> validate_sync_standby_slots() functions are not very us
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 6:26 PM Alexander Kukushkin wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sun, 7 Sept 2025 at 10:15, Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your reply Zhijie,
>>
>> I understand that the error invalid value for parameter will be diplayed in
>> case of bad value for the GUC synchronized_standb
Hi,
On Sun, 7 Sept 2025 at 10:15, Fabrice Chapuis
wrote:
> Thanks for your reply Zhijie,
>
> I understand that the error invalid value for parameter will be diplayed
> in case of bad value for the GUC synchronized_standby_slots or if a
> standby node configured is not up and running.
> But the
Thanks for your reply Zhijie,
I understand that the error invalid value for parameter will be diplayed
in case of bad value for the GUC synchronized_standby_slots or if a standby
node configured is not up and running.
But the problem I noticed is that statements could not execute normally and
err
On Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:27 PM Fabrice Chapuis
wrote:
> With PG 17.5 and using logical replication failover slots. When trying to
> change the value of synchronized_standby_slots, node2 was not running then the
> error invalid value for parameter "synchronized_standby_slots": "node1,nod
17 matches
Mail list logo
