Message-ID: <dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: Unexpected Standby Shutdown on sync_replication_slots change
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila
 <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Hugo DUBOIS
 <hdubois@scaleway.com>, 	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:34:52 +0200
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-1.fc42) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dcd0941f0ddb0b0c9b5299cc1277fc0153532ef4.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

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.
>=20
> 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 shou=
ld
> apply it to old branches.
>=20
> 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