Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-02-18T03:12:06Z
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 →
  1. Add a test for commit ac0e33136a using the injection point.

  2. Invalidate inactive replication slots.

  3. Fix incorrect slot type in BuildTupleHashTableExt

  4. Allow synced slots to have their inactive_since.

  5. Change last_inactive_time to inactive_since in pg_replication_slots.

  6. Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.

  7. Track invalidation_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  8. Add option force_initdb to PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster:init()

  9. Add a failover option to subscriptions.

  10. Allow setting failover property in the replication command.

  11. Allow to enable failover property for replication slots via SQL API.

  12. Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  13. Log messages for replication slot acquisition and release.

  14. Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

  15. Fix corruption due to vacuum_defer_cleanup_age underflowing 64bit xids

  16. meson: Add initial version of meson based build system

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.