Hi, On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:22:07AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 3:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure I like the fact that "invalidations" and "conflicts" are merged > > into a single field. I'd vote to keep conflict_reason as it is and add a new > > invalidation_reason (and put "conflict" as value when it is the case). The > > reason > > is that I think they are 2 different concepts (could be linked though) and > > that > > it would be easier to check for conflicts (means conflict_reason is not > > NULL). > > So, do you want conflict_reason for only logical slots, and a separate > column for invalidation_reason for both logical and physical slots?
Yes, with "conflict" as value in case of conflicts (and one would need to refer to the conflict_reason reason to see the reason). > Is there any strong reason to have two properties "conflict" and > "invalidated" for slots? I think "conflict" is an important topic and does contain several reasons. The slot "first" conflict and then leads to slot "invalidation". > They both are the same internally, so why > confuse the users? I don't think that would confuse the users, I do think that would be easier to check for conflicting slots. I did not look closely at the code, just played a bit with the patch and was able to produce something like: postgres=# select slot_name,slot_type,active,active_pid,wal_status,invalidation_reason from pg_replication_slots; slot_name | slot_type | active | active_pid | wal_status | invalidation_reason -------------+-----------+--------+------------+------------+--------------------- rep1 | physical | f | | reserved | master_slot | physical | t | 1482441 | unreserved | wal_removed (2 rows) does that make sense to have an "active/working" slot "ivalidated"? Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
