On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 5:51 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Would that make sense to "simply" discard/prevent those kind of > > invalidations > > for "synced" slot on standby? I mean, do they make sense given the fact that > > those slots are not usable until the standby is promoted? > > AFAIR, we don't prevent similar invalidations due to > 'max_slot_wal_keep_size' for sync slots, so why to prevent it for > these new parameters? This will unnecessarily create inconsistency in > the invalidation behavior.
Right. +1 to keep the behaviour consistent for all invalidations. However, an assertion that inactive_timeout isn't set for synced slots on the standby isn't a bad idea because we rely on the fact that walsenders aren't started for synced slots. Again, I think it misses the consistency in the invalidation behaviour. -- Bharath Rupireddy PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
