On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 11:04 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Dear Bertrand, Amit, > > > > I do prefer v5-PG17-2 as it is "closer" to HEAD. That said, I think that > > > we should > > > keep the slots active and only avoid doing the checks for them (they are > > invalidated > > > that's fine, they are not that's fine too). > > > > > > > I don't mind doing that, but there is no benefit in making slots > > active unless we can validate them. And we will end up adding some > > more checks, as in function check_slots_conflict_reason without any > > advantage. I feel Kuroda-San's second patch is simple, and we have > > fewer chances to make mistakes and easy to maintain in the future as > > well. > > I have concerns for Bertrand's patch that it could introduce another timing > issue. E.g., if the activated slots are not invalidated, dropping slots is > keep > being activated so the dropping might be fail. I did not reproduce this but > something like this can happen if we activate slots. > > Attached patch has a conclusion of these discussions, slots are created but > it seldomly be activated. > > Naming of patches are bit different, but please ignore... >
Isn't patch 0001-Fix-invalid-referring-of-hash-ref-for-replication-sl unrelated to this thread? Or am, I missing something? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
