Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 23:23:18 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Nazneen Jafri <jafrinazneen@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Read Replica termination occurs when its
 max_active_replication_origins setting is lower than the primary
Message-ID: <aMo3tsESKXh6MCVp@nathan>
References: 
 <CA+m5N8uciiyzVOBb+ncadQutLoMOFaqN13Phq+r_neZm2vd5gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAWGp5q9w7bN024NGT7QL=1Vw3PcqGBLbE35XGnT_JzpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aMog06qbmvLLcFSw@nathan>
 <CAD21AoB3kcrVnTxHX+F=MOt_DWHdKFBLKaBBeOcsUyW6jWEMfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="k8NvjNX9R4oGarBA"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoB3kcrVnTxHX+F=MOt_DWHdKFBLKaBBeOcsUyW6jWEMfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aMo3tsESKXh6MCVp%40nathan>
Precedence: bulk


--k8NvjNX9R4oGarBA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 09:05:33PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 7:45 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I haven't tried reproducing it on older versions (with
>> max_replication_slots instead of max_active_replication_origins), but after
>> looking at the code for a bit, I'm growing skeptical that this is new to
>> v18.
> 
> Right, it's actually not a new behavior to v18 as we can reproduce it
> with max_replication_slots. I guess that the reason why we didn't
> require standbys to set max_replication_slots no smaller than the
> primary's value is that in principle the maximum number of replication
> slots is not related to the recovery work. max_replication_slots juse
> used to be re-used for the maximum number of active replication
> origins for the sake of simplicity. Now that we have separated the
> maximum number of active replication origins from
> max_replication_slots, it seems to me that
> max_active_replication_origins is now clearly related to the recovery.

Given that it's existing behavior, I'm not seeing a strong reason to try to
do anything about this for v18.  But I could be misunderstanding the nuance
here.

>> In any case, the PANIC provides a clear error message, which is
>> roughly the same as what we'd say with the control file approach, right?
> 
> Yes. With the control file approach, we raise a FATAL (or pause the
> recovery with a WARNING) instead of PANIC.

I drafted up what that would look like.  One very small nitpick is that it
messes up the alignment of the pg_controldata output.  Otherwise, it seems
pretty straightforward.

-- 
nathan

--k8NvjNX9R4oGarBA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename=v1-0001-max_active_replication_origins-fix.patch