Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication

Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>

From: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>

To: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

Cc: Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>, surya poondla <suryapoondla4@gmail.com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2026-04-07T05:50:41Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 9:04 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I see your point. I agree that using wal_receiver_status_interval for
> this test may not be a reliable way. Can we attempt using
> pg_wal_replay_pause() on standby and then checking
> wait_event=WaitForStandbyConfirmation with backend_type=walsender on
> primary? Or do you see any issues in this approach that I might be
> overlooking?
>

Yes, I think we can make use of the WAL replay pause/resume mechanism.
This seems like the right approach, as it gives us a more controlled
and deterministic way to validate the lagging behavior.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.