On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:13 AM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:01:30PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed, I'm fine with leaving InRecovery in this condition. I think > > > > the point is whether we should add StandbyMode to the condition or > > > > not. I think if we do that, we would end up with the same error in the > > > > above scenario I described. So does the following condition make > > > > sense? > > > > > > > > if (InRecovery && > > > > xlrec.wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL && > > > > wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) > > > > InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots(RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL, > > > > 0, InvalidOid, > > > > InvalidTransactionId); > > > > > > > > > > This will still be true for crash-recovery as the InRecovery flag will > > > be true for that case as well. I think we should go with your v2 patch > > > approach for HEAD and back-branches. > > > > > > > Any opinion on how to proceed here? > > As far I'm concerned, I did not change my mind since [1] and think the same > i.e: > go with v2 for HEAD and back-branches.
Agreed too. So I'm going to proceed with backpatching the v2 patch to v16. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
