On Monday, February 12, 2024 5:40 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 6:53 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> > wrote: > > > > Agreed. Here is the V84 patch which addressed this. > > > > Few comments: > ============= > 1. Isn't the new function (pg_sync_replication_slots()) allowed to sync the > slots > from physical standby to another cascading standby? > Won't it be better to simply disallow syncing slots on cascading standby to > keep > it consistent with slotsync worker behavior? > > 2. > Previously, I commented to keep the declaration and definition of functions in > the same order but I see that it still doesn't match in the below case: > > @@ -44,6 +46,7 @@ extern void WalSndWakeup(bool physical, bool logical); > extern void WalSndInitStopping(void); extern void WalSndWaitStopping(void); > extern void HandleWalSndInitStopping(void); > +extern XLogRecPtr GetStandbyFlushRecPtr(TimeLineID *tli); > extern void WalSndRqstFileReload(void); > > I think we can keep the new declaration just before WalSndSignals(). > That would be more consistent. > > 3. > + <para> > + True if this is a logical slot that was synced from a primary server. > + </para> > + <para> > + On a hot standby, the slots with the synced column marked as true can > + neither be used for logical decoding nor dropped by the user. > + The value > > I don't think we need a separate para here. > > Apart from this, I have made several cosmetic changes in the attached. > Please include these in the next version unless you see any problems.
Thanks for the comments, I have addressed them. Here is the new version patch which addressed above and most of Bertrand's comments. TODO: trying to add one test for the case the slot is valid on primary while the synced slots is invalidated on the standby. Best Regards, Houzj
v85-0001-Add-a-slot-synchronization-function.patch
Description: v85-0001-Add-a-slot-synchronization-function.patch
