Horton

Re: Track in pg_replication_slots the reason why slots conflict?

shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

View thread
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-01-01T11:53:58Z
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. Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.

Attachments

On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 5:17 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 4:30 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 12:32 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > PFA v3 after changing column name to 'conflict_reason'
> > >
> >
> > Few minor comments:
> > ===================
> > 1.
> > +          <para>
> > +           <literal>wal_removed</literal> = required WAL has been removed.
> > +          </para>
> > +         </listitem>
> > +         <listitem>
> > +          <para>
> > +           <literal>rows_removed</literal> = required rows have been removed.
> > +          </para>
> > +         </listitem>
> > +         <listitem>
> > +          <para>
> > +           <literal>wal_level_insufficient</literal> = wal_level
> > insufficient on the primary server.
> > +          </para>
> >
> > Should we use the same style to write the description as we are using
> > for the wal_status column? For example, <literal>wal_removed</literal>
> > means that the required WAL has been removed.
> >
> > 2.
> > +      <para>
> > +       The reason of logical slot's conflict with recovery.
> >
> > My grammar tool says it should be: "The reason for the logical slot's
> > conflict with recovery."
> >
> > Other than these minor comments, the patch looks good to me.
>
> PFA  v4 which addresses the doc comments.

Please ignore the previous patch and PFA new v4 (v4_2). The only
change from the earlier v4 is the subject correction in commit msg.

thanks
Shveta