On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 12:07 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:53:04AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 11:18 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > > wrote: > > Yeah, if one uses them independently then there is no such guarantee. > > This could be possible in the same query as well, still less likely, > as the contents are volatile. >
True, this is quite obvious but that was not a recommended way to use the function. Anyway, now that we agree to expose it via an existing function, there is no point in further argument on this. > >> A lot could happen between both function calls while the > >> repslot LWLock is not hold. > >> > >> Yeah, you could keep the reason text as NULL when there is no > >> conflict, replacing the boolean by the text in the function, and keep > >> the view definition compatible with v16 while adding an extra column. > > > > But as mentioned we also want the enum value to be exposed in some way > > so that it can be used by the sync slot feature [1] as well, > > otherwise, we may need some mappings to convert the text back to an > > enum. I guess if we want to expose via view, then we can return an > > enum value by pg_get_replication_slots() and the view can replace it > > with text based on the value. > > Sure. Something like is OK by me as long as the data is retrieved > from a single scan of the slot data while holding the slot data's > LWLock. > Okay, so let's go this way unless someone feels otherwise. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
