Horton

Re: issue with synchronized_standby_slots

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

View thread
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: 2025-10-23T07:49:24Z
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. Fix GUC check_hook validation for synchronized_standby_slots.

  2. Make invalid primary_slot_name follow standard GUC error reporting.

Attachments

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.

Thanks,
Shlok Kyal