On 2026-Mar-16, Matthias van de Meent wrote: > Note that most of my argument hinges on the impact on other, unrelated > databases/tables/sessions. Replication slots have a hard cap defined > at startup, and effective_wal_level increases the WAL generated by > practically all backends.
I'd rather have a new GUC to declare a bunch of additional slots that are reserved exclusively for repack, set its default to something like 3, and call it a day. If all repack slots are in use, you don't get to run repack, period. A slot costs nothing if unused, and we really don't want to make the interaction with regular replication more complicated than it is today. > However, we don't live in that world, so I am opposed to allowing > table owners without REPLICATION to take any/all replication slots. I think requiring REPACK users to have the REPLICATION priv is rather user unfriendly. Some potential REPACK users might not have any other use for replication at all. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "World domination is proceeding according to plan" (Andrew Morton)
