Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

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

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

To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

Cc: Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90@gmail.com>, Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn@gmail.com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>

Date: 2025-10-23T08:14:50Z

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

Attachments

v6_REL_17-0001-Remove-the-validation-from-the-GUC-check-h.txt (text/plain)
v6-0001-Remove-the-validation-from-the-GUC-check-hook-and.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v6-0001

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 13:19, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 09:36, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2025 at 9:05 PM Fabrice Chapuis <fabrice636861@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > As Ashutosh suggests I will go more for the backpatching approach because the synchronized_standby_slots parameter impacts the last 2 major versions and this problem is critical on production environments.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough. Let's wait for the related issue being discussed in email
> > > [1] to be fixed.
> > >
> >
> > As the other patch is committed
> > (f33e60a53a9ca89b5078df49416acae20affe1f5), can you update and prepare
> > backbranch patches for this fix as well?
> >
> Hi Amit,
>
> Please find the updated patch.
>
> v6-0001 : It applies on HEAD and REL_18_STABLE branches
> v6_REL_17-0001 : It applies on REL_17_STABLE branch.
>
> Since this GUC was introduced in PG_17, we do not need to back-patch
> to PG_16 or prior.
>
The CFbot was failing due to the merge conflict. It happened because
CFbot tried to apply v6_REL_17 on top of v6-0001 patch. Added
v6_REL_17 as a .txt file so this merge conflict do not happen.

Thanks,
Shlok Kyal