On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 1:19 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 10:27 AM Nisha Moond <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 9:28 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts(), now we don't need the below logic right? > > > > > > if (SlotSyncCtx->stopSignaled) > > > { > > > if (AmLogicalSlotSyncWorkerProcess()) > > > { > > > ... > > > proc_exit(0); > > > } > > > else > > > { > > > /* > > > * For the backend executing SQL function > > > * pg_sync_replication_slots(). > > > */ > > > ereport(ERROR, > > > errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE), > > > errmsg("replication slot synchronization will stop > > > because promotion is triggered")); > > > } > > > } > > > > > > > Right. Attached patch with the suggested changes. > > > > After this change, why do we need to invoke > ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts() twice in SyncReplicationSlots? >
Also, not sure if it is a good idea to name current function as ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts() because we remove most of its interrupt handling. Shall we copy paste its code at two places as we do similar handling at other places as well. Another comment: * + + if (SlotSyncShutdown) + HandleSlotSyncShutdown(); ... ... + if (CheckProcSignal(PROCSIG_SLOTSYNC_MESSAGE)) + HandleSlotSyncShutdownInterrupt(); Would it better if we name these functions as HandleSlotSyncMessage() and HandleSlotSyncMessageInterrupt() because for API, these simply lead to an ERROR and that would match with the ProcSignalReason name PROCSIG_SLOTSYNC_MESSAGE? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
