Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Add a test for commit ac0e33136a using the injection point.
- 8a695d7998be 18.0 landed
-
Invalidate inactive replication slots.
- ac0e33136abc 18.0 landed
-
Fix incorrect slot type in BuildTupleHashTableExt
- d96d1d5152f3 18.0 cited
-
Allow synced slots to have their inactive_since.
- 6f132ed693b6 17.0 landed
-
Change last_inactive_time to inactive_since in pg_replication_slots.
- 6d49c8d4b4f4 17.0 landed
-
Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.
- a11f330b5584 17.0 landed
-
Track invalidation_reason in pg_replication_slots.
- 6ae701b4378d 17.0 landed
-
Add option force_initdb to PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster:init()
- ff9e1e764fcc 17.0 cited
-
Add a failover option to subscriptions.
- 776621a5e479 17.0 cited
-
Allow setting failover property in the replication command.
- 73292404370c 17.0 cited
-
Allow to enable failover property for replication slots via SQL API.
- c393308b69d2 17.0 cited
-
Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.
- 007693f2a3ac 17.0 cited
-
Log messages for replication slot acquisition and release.
- 7c3fb505b14e 17.0 cited
-
Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age
- 1118cd37eb61 16.0 cited
-
Fix corruption due to vacuum_defer_cleanup_age underflowing 64bit xids
- be504a3e974d 16.0 cited
-
meson: Add initial version of meson based build system
- e6927270cd18 16.0 cited
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:57:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > Alvaro, Nathan, do let us know if you would like to discuss more on > > the use case for this new GUC idle_replication_slot_timeout? > > Otherwise, we can proceed with this patch. > > I guess I'm not mortally opposed to it. I just think we really need > proper backstops against the storage/XID issues more than we need this one, > and I don't want it to be mistaken for a solution to those problems. > Fair enough. I see your point and would like to discuss the other parameter in a separate thread. I plan to push the 0001 tomorrow after some more review/testing unless I see any further arguments or comments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.