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: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, 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: 2025-10-24T07:20:56Z
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

Hi Amit,
Thanks for reviewing the patch.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 16:58, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 2:58 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 at 13:45, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2.
> > > Also, test for PG18 should not have the case which rejects the reserved name.
> > >
>
> Why to have that even for HEAD and PG18?
>
I added it as per comment in [1] to increase test coverage. I also do
not see any other existing test in HEAD hitting this error. So I added
this test.

> > > 3.
> > > ```
> > > -- Parallel worker does not throw error during startup.
> > > SET min_parallel_table_scan_size TO 0;
> > > SET parallel_setup_cost TO 0;
> > > SET parallel_tuple_cost TO 0;
> > > ```
> > >
> > > According to contrib/pg_stat_statements/sql/parallel.sql, max_parallel_workers_per_gather
> > > should be also set. There is a possiblity that `make installcheck` is used and
> > > it has max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0.
> > >
>
> +-- Parallel worker does not throw error during startup.
> +SET min_parallel_table_scan_size TO 0;
> +SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather TO 2;
> +SET parallel_setup_cost TO 0;
> +SET parallel_tuple_cost TO 0;
> +CREATE TABLE t1(a int);
> +INSERT INTO t1 VALUES(1), (2), (3), (4);
> +SELECT count(*) FROM t1;
>
> Isn't it better to reset these parameters after the test?
>
According to the latest discussion. I have removed this test.
Attached the updated patches.

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAE9k0P%3DOFMFCRy9aDGWZ3bt91tbB1WnzsAbzXN72iWBaGVuMrw%40mail.gmail.com

Thanks,
Shlok Kyal