On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 7:17 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 06:02:11PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 5:30 PM Bertrand Drouvot > > <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 03:56:23PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > > > > > > That would avoid testing twice "slot->data.persistency == > > > > > RS_PERSISTENT". > > > > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like a good idea. Also, don't we need to consider physical > > > > slots where we don't reserve WAL during slot creation? I don't think > > > > there is a need to set inactive_at for such slots. > > > > > > If the slot is not active, why shouldn't we set inactive_at? I can > > > understand > > > that such a slots do not present "any risks" but I think we should still > > > set > > > inactive_at (also to not give the false impression that the slot is > > > active). > > > > > > > But OTOH, there is a chance that we will invalidate such slots even > > though they have never reserved WAL in the first place which doesn't > > appear to be a good thing. > > That's right but I don't think it is not a good thing. I think we should treat > inactive_at as an independent field (like if the timeout one does not exist at > all) and just focus on its meaning (slot being inactive). If one sets a > timeout > (> 0) and gets an invalidation then I think it works as designed (even if the > slot does not present any "risk" as it does not hold any rows or WAL). >
Fair point. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.