On 2025/07/02 16:12, Fujii Masao wrote:
On 2025/07/01 13:52, Nisha Moond wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
Is this true starting from v16, when logical replication from standby was
introduced?
In other words, in v15 and earlier, only max_slot_wal_keep_size could cause
the wal_status to become "unreserved" or "lost"? I'm wondering where to
back-patch
this fix to.
I also think we should back-patch this till v16, since that’s when
additional slot invalidation causes were also introduced(commit
be87200). And since then “max_slot_wal_keep_size” is no longer the
sole reason for “unreserved” or “lost” status.
Okay, I've prepared two patches:
- 0001 removes the incorrect line: "If restart_lsn is NULL, this field is null."
This should be back-patched to v13.
- 0002 updates the description of the wal_status to reflect that
max_slot_wal_keep_size
is not the only cause of the lost state. This should be back-patched to v16.
Barrng objections, I will commit these patches.
I've pushed the patches. Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation
