On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 12:03 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 11:36 AM Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Makes sense. The attached patch addresses this too. > > > > -- > > Thanks Ashutosh. I have not yet looked at today's patch, please find a > few comments from previous one: > > 1) > I noticed a change in behavior compared to the HEAD. > > Earlier, inactive slots were considered blocking only if they were > lagging (restart_lsn < wait_for_lsn). Now, inactive slots are treated > as blocking regardless of their restart_lsn. I think we should revert > to the previous behavior. It’s possible for a slot to catch up and > then become inactive; in such cases, it should still be treated as > caught up rather than blocking. >
Oh, absolutely, you're spot on. I will get this (and other things related to this) fixed in the next patch. Thanks for pointing it out. -- With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma.
