On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:57:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Alvaro, Nathan, do let us know if you would like to discuss more on > > the use case for this new GUC idle_replication_slot_timeout? > > Otherwise, we can proceed with this patch. > > I guess I'm not mortally opposed to it. I just think we really need > proper backstops against the storage/XID issues more than we need this one, > and I don't want it to be mistaken for a solution to those problems. >
Fair enough. I see your point and would like to discuss the other parameter in a separate thread. I plan to push the 0001 tomorrow after some more review/testing unless I see any further arguments or comments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
