Dear Amit, Bertrand,
> The other idea to simplify the changes for backbranches:
> sub reactive_slots_change_hfs_and_wait_for_xmins
> {
> ...
> + my ($slot_prefix, $hsf, $invalidated, $needs_active_slot) = @_;
>
> # create the logical slots
> - create_logical_slots($node_standby, $slot_prefix);
> + create_logical_slots($node_standby, $slot_prefix, $needs_active_slot);
>
> ...
> + if ($needs_active_slot)
> + {
> + $handle =
> + make_slot_active($node_standby, $slot_prefix, 1, \$stdout, \$stderr);
> + }
>
> What if this function doesn't take input parameter needs_active_slot
> and rather removes the call to make_slot_active? We will call
> make_slot_active only at the required places. This should make the
> changes much less because after that, we don't need to make changes
> related to drop and create. Sure, in some cases, we will test two
> inactive slots instead of one, but I guess that would be the price to
> keep the tests simple and more like HEAD.Actually, I could not decide which one is better, so let me share both drafts. V5-PG17-1 uses the previous approach, and v5-PG17-2 uses new proposed one. Bertrand, which one do you like? Best regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
v5-PG17-1-0001-Stabilize-035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.patch
Description: v5-PG17-1-0001-Stabilize-035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.patch
v5-PG17-2-0001-Stabilize-035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.patch
Description: v5-PG17-2-0001-Stabilize-035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.patch
