On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:18 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 11:11 AM vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 at 17:47, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 5:29 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@kurilemu.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2025-Jul-09, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 9:07 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > After further consideration, I believe your proposed method is > > > > > > superior to forcing the max_slot_wal_keep_size to -1 via a check > > > > > > hook. > > > > > > The ultimate goal is to prevent WAL removal during a binary upgrade, > > > > > > and your approach directly addresses this issue rather than > > > > > > controlling it by forcing the GUC value. I am planning to send a > > > > > > patch using this approach for both max_slot_wal_keep_size as well as > > > > > > for idle_replication_slot_timeout. > > > > > > > > > > PFA, with this approach. > > > > > > > > This indeed makes the whole thing a lot simpler and more direct than the > > > > original code, and solves this subthread's complaint. It's a bit weird > > > > that slot.c and xlog.c now have to worry about IsBinaryUpgrade, but I > > > > don't feel any guilt about that. > > > > > > Thanks Alvaro for having a look. > > > > > > > I propose a few comment updates on top of your patch. > > > > > > This comment updates LGTM, so included in v3. > > > > The patch does not apply on the PG17 branch where the original issue > > was reported. I felt we should backbranch this up to PG17 where this > > was added. > > Right, it should be backported till 17, I will work on the patch and > send it soon. Thanks for reporting. > PFA, patch for v17.
-- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
V17_v3-0001-Better-way-to-prevent-wal-removal-during-binary-u.patch
Description: Binary data
