Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

To: Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>

Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-10-23T04:06:07Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

Fix GUC check_hook validation for synchronized_standby_slots.
- e0dc4bbfb885 19 (unreleased) landed
- b45a8d7d8b30 18.1 landed
- 0024f5a1022e 17.7 landed
Make invalid primary_slot_name follow standard GUC error reporting.
- f33e60a53a9c 19 (unreleased) cited

On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 9:05 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As Ashutosh suggests I will go more for the backpatching approach because the synchronized_standby_slots parameter impacts the last 2 major versions and this problem is critical on production environments.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Let's wait for the related issue being discussed in email
> [1] to be fixed.
>

As the other patch is committed
(f33e60a53a9ca89b5078df49416acae20affe1f5), can you update and prepare
backbranch patches for this fix as well?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.