On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 10:28 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 9:48 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Such a test looks reasonable but shall we add equal to in the second > > part of the test (like '$last_inactive_time'::timestamptz >= > > > '$slot_creation_time'::timestamptz;). This is just to be sure that even > > > if the test ran fast enough to give the same time, the test shouldn't > > > fail. I think it won't matter for correctness as well.
Agree. I added that in v19 patch. I was having that concern in my
mind. That's the reason I wasn't capturing current_time something like
below for the same worry that current_timestamp might be the same (or
nearly the same) as the slot creation time. That's why I ended up
capturing current_timestamp in a separate query than clubbing it up
with pg_create_physical_replication_slot.
SELECT current_timestamp FROM pg_create_physical_replication_slot('foo');
> Apart from this, I have made minor changes in the comments. See and
> let me know what you think of attached.
LGTM. I've merged the diff into v19 patch.
Please find the attached v19 patch.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
v19-0001-Track-last_inactive_time-in-pg_replication_slots.patch
Description: Binary data
