On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 3:22 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 3:02 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) > <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, August 12, 2025 5:01 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 2:06 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > > postgres=# create subscription sub2 connection 'dbname=postgres > > > > > host=localhost user=shveta port=5433' publication pub2 WITH > > > > > (retain_dead_tuples = false, max_conflict_retention_duration=1000); > > > > > NOTICE: created replication slot "sub2" on publisher CREATE > > > > > SUBSCRIPTION > > > > > > > > > > Shall we give notice that max_conflict_retention_duration is ignored > > > > > as retain_dead_tuples is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about disallowing this combination? > > > > > > +1 to disallow that. > > > > I think disallowing this case may not suffice, as users could initially set > > (retain_dead_tuples=on, max_conflict_retention_duration=100) but later > > disable > > retain_dead_tuples. This would result in the same state as > > (retain_dead_tuples=off, max_conflict_retention_duration=100) unless we > > disallow > > disabling rdt in this case as well. > > > > So, do you think we should disallow both cases, or we only disallow setting > > max_conflict_retention_duration for disabled retain_dead_tuples and give > > NOTICE > > in another case ? > > > > I personally prefer a consistent behavior, e.g., either we allow both cases > > and > > give NOTICEs, or we disallow both cases. This is because, if the goal here > > to > > prevent potential misconfigurations by users, the scenario where a user > > disables > > retain_dead_tuples might also be considered a similar misconfiguration. So, > > I'm > > a bit concerned that the benefits of imposing a partial restriction may not > > outweigh the risk of generating inconsistent behavior. (And I did not see > > similar precedent). > > I think setting 'retain_dead_tuples' to off should implicitly reset > 'max_conflict_retention_duration', yeah but someone may argue if we > again set 'retain_dead_tuples' to on then we should set > 'max_conflict_retention_duration' to its original value and that could > add an extra complexity.
I have the exact same opinion here. > > So maybe after thinking again IMHO, we can just go with the current > behavior, like we allow max_conflict_retention_duration to be set to a > positive value without setting retain_dead_tuples and issue a NOTICE > (in both cases). > I feel that displaying a NOTICE in all such commands where 'max_conflict_retention_duration' will have no meaning is good enough. thanks Shveta