On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:10 PM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 3:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, your understanding is correct. I wanted us to consider having new > > parameters like 'inactive_replication_slot_timeout' to be at > > slot-level instead of GUC. I think this new parameter doesn't seem to > > be the similar as 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' which leads to truncation > > of WAL at global and then invalidates the appropriate slots. OTOH, the > > 'inactive_replication_slot_timeout' doesn't appear to have a similar > > global effect. > > last_inactive_at is tracked for each slot using which slots get > invalidated based on inactive_replication_slot_timeout. It's like > max_slot_wal_keep_size invalidating slots based on restart_lsn. In a > way, both are similar, right? >
There is some similarity but 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' leads to truncation of WAL which in turn leads to invalidation of slots. Here, I am also trying to be cautious in adding a GUC unless it is required or having a slot-level parameter doesn't serve the need. Having said that, I see that there is an argument that we should follow the path of 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' GUC and there is some value to it but still I think avoiding a new GUC for inactivity in the slot would outweigh. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
