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: Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>

Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2026-06-16T10:42:43Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

0003-Add-FIRST-N-and-N-.-priority-syntax-to-synchronized_.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0003
0002-Add-ANY-N-semantics-to-synchronized_standby_slots.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0002
0001-Refactor-syncrep-parsing-to-represent-bare-standby-l.patch (application/octet-stream) patch 0001

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:09 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I checked the CFbot and saw the test was failing [1].
>
> It is failing for the test:
> not ok 4     - guc_privs                                 171 ms
>

Thanks for reporting this. The attached patches address the issue and
also incorporate the feedback from Shevta in [1].

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJpy0uCKaqD-UfCX%3DQ5WkdtxUS8ZCJwLduegi5Etdx7gkV-02g%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.