Hi,
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 12:25:21PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Such a test looks reasonable but shall we add equal to in the second
> > > part of the test (like '$last_inactive_time'::timestamptz >=
> > > > '$slot_creation_time'::timestamptz;). This is just to be sure that even
> > > > if the test ran fast enough to give the same time, the test shouldn't
> > > > fail. I think it won't matter for correctness as well.
>
> Agree. I added that in v19 patch. I was having that concern in my
> mind. That's the reason I wasn't capturing current_time something like
> below for the same worry that current_timestamp might be the same (or
> nearly the same) as the slot creation time. That's why I ended up
> capturing current_timestamp in a separate query than clubbing it up
> with pg_create_physical_replication_slot.
>
> SELECT current_timestamp FROM pg_create_physical_replication_slot('foo');
>
> > Apart from this, I have made minor changes in the comments. See and
> > let me know what you think of attached.
>
Thanks!
v19-0001 LGTM, just one Nit comment for 019_replslot_limit.pl:
The code for "Get last_inactive_time value after the slot's creation" and
"Check that the captured time is sane" is somehow duplicated: is it worth
creating
2 functions?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
