On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 8:43 PM Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 23, 2024, at 5:54 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Why in the first place do we need to ensure that primary_slot_name is > active on the primary? You mentioned something related to WAL > retention but I don't know how that is related to this tool's > functionality. If at all, we are bothered about WAL retention on the > primary that should be the WAL corresponding to consistent_lsn > computed by setup_publisher() but this check doesn't seem to ensure > that. > > Maybe it is a lot of checks. I'm afraid there isn't a simple way to get and > make sure the replication slot is used by the physical replication. I mean if > there is primary_slot_name = 'foo' on standby, there is no guarantee that the > replication slot 'foo' exists on primary. The idea is to get the exact > replication slot name used by physical replication to drop it. Once I posted a > patch it should be clear. (Another idea is to relax this check and rely only > on > primary_slot_name to drop this replication slot on primary. The replication > slot > might not exist and it shouldn't return an error in this case.) >
I think your other idea is better than what we are doing currently. Let's ignore the ERROR even if the primary_slot_name doesn't exist on the primary. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
