Hi Hayato,
Thank you for taking a look.
> > The patch currently attempts to invalidate once-per-autovacuum worker.
> > We're wondering if it should attempt invalidation on a per-relation
> > basis within the vacuum call itself. That would account for scenarios
> > where the cost_delay or naptime
Dear John,
> The first issue can be mitigated by 'max_slot_wal_keep_size'. However
> in the second case there are no good mechanisms to prioritize write
> availability of the database and avoid wraparound. The new GUC
> 'idle_replication_slot_timeout' partially addresses the concern if you
> have
Hi folks,
I'd like to restart the discussion about providing an xid-based slot
invalidation mechanism. The previous effort [1] presented an XID and
time-based invalidation and the inactive time-based approach was
implemented first. The latest XID based patch from Bharath Rupireddy
can be found he
