On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:29 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:53 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Some review comments for v2-0001.
> >
> > ==
> > doc/src/sgml/system-views.sgml
> >
> > 1.
> > The time when the slot became inactive. NULL if the slot is currently
> > being stream
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 5:53 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for v2-0001.
>
> ==
> doc/src/sgml/system-views.sgml
>
> 1.
> The time when the slot became inactive. NULL if the slot is currently
> being streamed. If the slot becomes invalid, this value will never be
> updated. Note
Hi Nisha,
Some review comments for v2-0001.
==
doc/src/sgml/system-views.sgml
1.
The time when the slot became inactive. NULL if the slot is currently
being streamed. If the slot becomes invalid, this value will never be
updated. Note that for slots on the standby that are being synced from
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 12:05 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 11:52, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Here is the v2 patch with above change and other comments from [1] and
> > [2] incorporated.
>
> One small suggestion:
> Since we will not be retaining inactive time for invalid slots afte
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 11:52, Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> Here is the v2 patch with above change and other comments from [1] and
> [2] incorporated.
One small suggestion:
Since we will not be retaining inactive time for invalid slots after
server restart, the inactive time will be lost in this case, sh
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:33 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2025 8:03 PM Nisha Moond
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hackers,
> > (CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
> >
> > Right now, it is possible for the 'inactive_since' value of an invalid
> > replication
> > slot
On Monday, February 3, 2025 8:03 PM Nisha Moond
wrote:
>
> Hi Hackers,
> (CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
>
> Right now, it is possible for the 'inactive_since' value of an invalid
> replication
> slot to be updated multiple times, which is unexpected behavior.
> As suggested in
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 8:37 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v1-0001
>
> ==
> GENERAL - Missing Test case?
>
> 1.
> Should there be some before/after test case for 'active_since' value
> with invalid slots to verify that the patch is doing what it says?
>
I think the e
Hi Nisha.
Some review comments for patch v1-0001
==
GENERAL - Missing Test case?
1.
Should there be some before/after test case for 'active_since' value
with invalid slots to verify that the patch is doing what it says?
==
src/backend/replication/slot.c
ReplicationSlotAcquire:
2.
I sa
