On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:09 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2024-Mar-26, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > We have a consensus on inactive_since, so I'll make that change. > > Sounds reasonable. So this is a timestamptz if the slot is inactive, > NULL if active, right? >
Yes. > What value is it going to have for sync slots? > The behavior will be the same for non-sync slots. In each sync cycle, we acquire/release the sync slots. So at the time of release, inactive_since will be updated. See email [1]. > > I would also like to solicit your opinion on the other slot-level > > parameter we are planning to introduce. This new slot-level parameter > > will be named as inactive_timeout. > > Maybe inactivity_timeout? > > > This will indicate that once the slot is inactive for the > > inactive_timeout period, we will invalidate the slot. We are also > > discussing to have this parameter (inactive_timeout) as GUC [1]. We > > can have this new parameter both at the slot level and as well as a > > GUC, or just one of those. > > replication_slot_inactivity_timeout? > So, it seems you are okay to have this parameter both at slot level and as a GUC. About names, let us see what others think. Thanks for the input on the names. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KrPGwfZV9LYGidjxHeW%2BrxJ%3DE2ThjXvwRGLO%3DiLNuo%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
