On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:24:27AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I don't understand the proposal. Michael posted a patch that adds > pg_wal_oldest_lsn(), and you say we should apply the patch except the > part that adds that function -- so what part would be applying?
I have sent last week a patch about only the removal of min_safe_lsn: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200619121552.gh453...@paquier.xyz So this applies to this part. > If the proposal is to apply just the hunk in pg_get_replication_slots > that removes min_safe_lsn, and do nothing else in pg13, then I don't like > it. The feature exposes a way to monitor slots w.r.t. the maximum slot > size; I'm okay if you prefer to express that in a different way, but I > don't like the idea of shipping pg13 without any way to monitor it. From what I can see, it seems to me that we have a lot of views of how to tackle the matter. That gives an idea that we are not really happy with the current state of things, and usually a sign that we may want to redesign it, going back to this issue for v14. My 2c. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
