The parameter* sync_replication_slots* could be tested if it is set to true before doing any action on failover slots.
Regards, Fabrice On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 12:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
