On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 at 05:59, Euler Taveira <eu...@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025, at 8:47 AM, vignesh C wrote: > > I reviewed the discussion on this thread and believe we now have an > agreement on the design and GUC names. However, the patch still needs > updates and extensive testing, especially considering its impact on > backward compatibility. I'm unsure if this feature can be committed in > the current CommitFest. If you're okay with it, we can move it to the > next CommitFest. However, if you prefer to keep it, we can do our best > to complete it and make a final decision at the end of the CommitFest. > > > This is a mechanical patch. I was waiting if someone would object or suggest a > better GUC name. It seems to me it isn't. The pre existing GUC > (max_replication_slots) already has coverage. I don't know what additional > tests you have in mind. Could you elaborate?
I was considering any potential impact on pg_upgrade and pg_createsubscriber. I will run tests with the latest posted patch to verify. > I'm biased to say that it is one of the easiest patches to commit because it > is > just assigning a new GUC name for a pre existing functionality. If there is no > interested in it, it will be moved to the next CF. Sounds like a plan! Let's verify it and work towards getting it committed. Regards, Vignesh
