On Wed, 26 Nov 2025 at 14:23, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 26, 2025 2:29 PM Shlok Kyal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I have also addressed the remaining comments and attached the updated > > patch. > > Thanks for updating the patch, I have few comments: > > 1. > +/* > + * Map a SlotSyncSkipReason enum to a human-readable string > + */ > +static char * > +GetSlotSyncSkipReasonName(SlotSyncSkipReason reason) > > Shall we add a static array to map the Enum value to the reason name > instead of adding the following function ? > I think static array would be more clean and consistent with ConflictTypeNames and SlotInvalidationCauses. Made the changes for same.
> 2. > + <literal>remote_behind</literal> means that the slot is ahead of > the > + corresponding failover slot on the primary. > > I think the current naming and doc is not easy for user to understand. So, I > suggest mentioning the explicit reason of this skip, e.g., the required WALs > and > rows are removed or at the risk of removal. We can rename this reason to > "wal_or_rows_removed" and make the document similar to the content in > logicaldecoding.sgml. > I agree. Included the changes for same. I have also addressed the comments by Shveta in [1]. [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uDKC0QubC0pL%3DbZ4Qnq3eQbykLnFu5x%3DwmDkOmL44QL7g%40mail.gmail.com Thanks, Shlok Kyal
v14-0001-Add-slotsync_skip_reason-to-pg_replication_slots.patch
Description: Binary data
