pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Cc: Hugo DUBOIS <hdubois@scaleway.com>
Cc: pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:34:52 +0200
Message-ID: <dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHGQGwGWU7zY083uTwdzcO5c7s+Qs_R1rUfL39Ai_2_rz30J0w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH0PTU_pc3oHi__XESF9ZigCyzai1Mo3LsOdFyQA4aUDkm01RA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwGKT=qODdxfE7zxmCjkYYGyKqS9-yQ8NcxRROeKRYOJeA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwFG8qB_vYbP-2Ec=WA4q=kzjMeN0F8Z1JZMbYku6qzq6w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJpy0uBY7_V8fdA6X2Ajq3zaEgSp8wyUVqoVGM-bhoBUoDt5dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH0PTU_iU=qx83h_Ud5YWCCMHFTvuVbxzR8WiYft01rJns+U8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwFSD+UCGSz9VgD8tjmhj48OPV=f7Pp8NrAqno6C0=mdXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH0PTU-rGtqOkKJ6sV0OuzkpgZGL5UQiDR2MArHmktr5HdRC1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwHDSah34mkPtN12ZW09K9Ti8KmpCPEpaJgJmo2XrnGC7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJpy0uBT=isjWN0Ko_Kp7xd8uhP9PX+YpfbuxoqbB0OVVs8sQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1+3MB+yrODwh=TXqEtiu-OawZB-5u6-4ui1+RKOYgOppg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHGQGwGWU7zY083uTwdzcO5c7s+Qs_R1rUfL39Ai_2_rz30J0w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 2025-07-29 at 13:40 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> I think it's basically not acceptable for a server to start up
> successfully before a minor version update, but then fail to start with
> the same configuration after the update. If that's absolutely necessary
> to fix a bug, it might be justifiable. But in this case, I don't think
> it's required.
> 
> Blocking startup when sync_replication_slots is enabled and wal_level
> is not logical could be helpful. But that feels more like an improvement
> than a bug fix. I'm fine adding that to master, but I don't think we should
> apply it to old branches.
> 
> That said, both Shveta and Amit support backpatching this change,
> so I'd like to hear more opinions before we decide.

I side with you on that one.

I think it would be fine to backpatch the breaking change to v18,
if we mention the behavior change in the release notes.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe





view thread (21+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at>
Permalink:  ../dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, masao.fujii@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, shveta.malik@gmail.com, hdubois@scaleway.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change
  In-Reply-To: <dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox