Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>

From: Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>

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

Cc: Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-09-10T11:53:41Z

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 →

Fix GUC check_hook validation for synchronized_standby_slots.
- e0dc4bbfb885 19 (unreleased) landed
- b45a8d7d8b30 18.1 landed
- 0024f5a1022e 17.7 landed
Make invalid primary_slot_name follow standard GUC error reporting.
- f33e60a53a9c 19 (unreleased) cited

Hi,

On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 13:34, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think we should also add a parsing check for slot names specified in
> the GUC synchronize_standby_slots as suggested by Amit in [1].
> I made the changes in the above for the same and attached the updated
> patch.

I agree, validating that list contains valid replication slot names is a
good idea.
However, you used ReplicationSlotValidateName() function, which is not a
good fit for it, especially when it is called with elevel=ERROR in
postmaster.

-- 
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin