On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 9:56 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 5:23 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > My understanding was that the purpose of this patch was not anything > > to do with "optimisations" per se, but rather it was (like the > > $SUBJECT says) to ensure the *same* 'active_since' timestamp value > > gets assigned. > > > > E.g the change to RestoreSlotFromDisk() was to prevent multiple slots > > from all getting assigned different 'active_since' values that differ > > by only 1 or 2 milliseconds because that would look strange to anyone > > inspecting those 'active_since' values. > > > > I see your point but not sure whether it will matter in practice > unless the number of slots is large. I feel the second patch discussed > here is a clear improvement as it helps centralize the logic to give > ERRORs for invalid slots. This is useful especially when we are > thinking of adding more reasons for slot invalidation. So, we should > put our energy into getting the 0002 patch proposed here committed and > the related patch to add a new reason for slot invalidation. >
+1 Removed patch v1-0001. Please find the attached version 2 of 0002, which is now v2-0001. In v2, I have addressed all comments till now from [1] , [2] and [3]. - With the proposed errdetail message in [3], the new function RaiseSlotInvalidationError() is no longer required. - Updated the test files to match the new error message. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPvS3rkwy6hr_awx1of4Se%2BqRsDo%3DjZyAjM9%3Dbbvr2GF9g%40mail.gmail.com [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KW_30TNG65iRDBMcqqcC2wGnK%2Bp4pbV7cLzHLTXn3-zQ%40mail.gmail.com [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1KCYGMA-qWXBWRWKe%2B90fKw8gVMep3GuTvbRKdNG3OTMQ%40mail.gmail.com -- Thanks, Nisha
v2-0001-Raise-Error-for-Invalid-Slots-in-ReplicationSlotA.patch
Description: Binary data
