On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 12:01 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 11:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > BTW, another related point is that when we decide to stop retaining > > dead tuples (via should_stop_conflict_info_retention), should we also > > consider the case that the apply worker didn't even try to get the > > publisher status because previously it decided that > > oldest_nonremovable_xid cannot be advanced due to its > > OldestActiveTransactionId? > > > > Do you mean avoid stop-conflict-retention in such a case as apply > worker itself did not request status from the publisher? If I > understood your point correctly, then we can do that by advancing the > timer to a new value even if we did not update candidate-xid and did > not ask the status from the publisher. >
But candidate_xid_time is also used in wait_for_local_flush() to check clock_skew between publisher and subscriber, so for that purpose, it is better to set it along with candidate_xid. However, can't we rely on the valid value of candidate_xid to ensure that apply worker didn't send any request? Note that we always reset candidate_xid once we have updated oldest_nonremovable_xid. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
