On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 3:07 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 2:32 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > After the first failover, the following failovers will work given that the > > sync flag is true on both the primary and standby slots. > > > > After new sandby is attached to the primary, can we imagine that when the > > sync worker process is started we check if a failover slot exists on the > > standby, if so we drop it before recreating a new one for syncing? > > > > This has the risk of dropping an unwarranted slot. >
On thinking further, even if we decide to support this functionality of overwriting the existing slots in some way, what is guarantee that the new standby will enable syncslot functionality (via sync_replication_slots)? If standby doesn't enable the sync_replication_slots then such slots will remain dangling and lead to the accumulation of WAL. So, I think the first thing to do is to avoid such cases, both for failover and non-failover slots. Then we should consider ways to allow overwriting existing slots on standby in the scenario you explained. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
