Horton

Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
Cc: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-09-24T10:15:36Z
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. Fix GUC check_hook validation for synchronized_standby_slots.

  2. Make invalid primary_slot_name follow standard GUC error reporting.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 12:14 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 1:00 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Sept 2025 at 09:55, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:34 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have attached the updated v4 patch
> > > >
> > >
> > > +# Cannot be set synchronized_standby_slots to a reserved slot name
> > > +($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $primary->psql('postgres',
> > > + "ALTER SYSTEM SET synchronized_standby_slots='pg_conflict_detection'");
> > > +ok( $stderr =~
> > > +   m/WARNING:  replication slot name "pg_conflict_detection" is reserved/,
> > > + "Cannot use a reserverd slot name");
> > > +
> > > +# Cannot be set synchronized_standby_slots to slot name with invalid characters
> > > +($result, $stdout, $stderr) = $primary->psql('postgres',
> > > + "ALTER SYSTEM SET synchronized_standby_slots='invalid*'");
> > > +ok( $stderr =~
> > > +   m/WARNING:  replication slot name "invalid\*" contains invalid character/,
> > > + "Cannot use a invalid slot name");
> > >
> > > These tests can be present in some sql file. I think you have kept
> > > these in the .pl file to keep it along with other tests but I think
> > > these are better suited for some .sql file.
> > >
> > Thanks for reviewing the patch.
> > I have moved the tests to the guc.sql file. I have attached the updated patch.
> >
>
> Are we planning to wait for [1] to go in first, since this also
> depends on ReplicationSlotValidateName?
>

I think we can go either way. It somewhat depends on whether we want
to backpatch this change. The argument for having this as a HEAD-only
patch is that, we have a similar behavior for other variables like
default_table_access_method and default_tablespace in HEAD and
back-branches. We want to change to a better behavior for this GUC, so
better to keep this as a HEAD-only patch. Do you or others have
thoughts on this matter?

If we decide to do this as a HEAD-only patch, then I think we can push
this without waiting for the other patch to commit as we have ample
time to get that done and we already have a solution as well for it.
OTOH, if we want to backpatch this then I would prefer to wait for the
other patch to be committed first.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.