On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 2:54 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 10:05:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:07 PM Bertrand Drouvot > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Maybe the "best" approach would be to have a way to detect that a slot > > > has been > > > re-created on the primary (but that would mean rely on more than the slot > > > name > > > to "identify" a slot and probably add a new member to the struct to do > > > so). > > > > > > > Right, I also thought so but not sure further complicating the slot > > machinery is worth detecting this case explicitly. If we see any > > problem with the idea discussed then we may need to think something > > along those lines. > > Yeah, let's see. On one side that would require extra work but on the other > side > that would also probably simplify (and less bug prone in the mid-long term?) > other parts of the code. >
After following Sawada-San's suggestion to not copy the 'failover' option there doesn't seem to be much special handling, so there is probably less to simplify. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
