Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:46:00AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > On Friday, February 23, 2024 1:22 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks for the patches. Had a quick look at v95_2, here are some > > trivial comments: > > Thanks for the comments. > > > 6) streaming replication standby server slot names that logical walsender > > processes will wait for > > > > Is it better to say it like this? (I leave this to your preference) > > > > streaming replication standby server slot names for which logical > > walsender processes will wait. > > I feel the current one seems better, so didn’t change. Other comments have > been > addressed. Here is the V97 patch set which addressed Shveta's comments. > > > Besides, I'd like to clarify and discuss the behavior of standby_slot_names > once. > > As it stands in the patch, If the slots specified in standby_slot_names are > dropped or invalidated, the logical walsender will issue a WARNING and > continue > to replicate the changes. Another option for this could be to have the > walsender pause until the slot in standby_slot_names is re-created or becomes > valid again. Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter ?
Good point, I'd vote for: the only reasons not to wait are: - slots mentioned in standby_slot_names exist and valid and do catch up or - standby_slot_names is empty The reason is that setting standby_slot_names to a non empty value means that one wants the walsender to wait until the standby catchup. The way to remove this intentional behavior should be by changing the standby_slot_names value (not the existence or the state of the slot(s) it points too). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
