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

Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>

From: Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>
To: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-11-13T09:35:01Z
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 Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:22 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
> >
>
> Thanks for addressing comments.
>
> Is there a reason that we don't support this invalidation on hot
> standby for non-synced slots? Shouldn't we support this time-based
> invalidation there too just like other invalidations?
>

I don’t see any reason to *not* support this invalidation on hot
standby for non-synced slots. Therefore, I’ve added the same in v48.

--
Thanks,
Nisha