Message-ID: <2016d3c0-0106-400c-91a1-80a21518fded@oss.nttdata.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 23:13:05 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Mention idle_replication_slot_timeout in pg_replication_slots
 docs
From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
References: <78b34e84-2195-4f28-a151-5d204a382fdd@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CABdArM5r8wD8w1dTMh+ozXZw5TbiWRYHzrc2tCy6PNOsffHvLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <938e2d16-4449-413b-a2fc-2595e732e3e1@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CABdArM5qHWK9MTjq9Jj=35UYqv02BjRam0FPCLUHNaMceACpcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <c9d23cdc-b5dd-455a-8ee9-f1f24d701d89@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CABdArM4KqFVoSzZBYs4jPBEo=4e1kjcOpCF8rWZSthxZFcnWdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <8147005b-42b5-47d5-84a4-53965568fd6a@oss.nttdata.com>
 <CABdArM57-zFzXCg8bMYaEdjyVEndssR0qRXU9zA0Fnh5YUaiDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <95d064d7-9902-436c-a4d2-a1155e4208c2@oss.nttdata.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <95d064d7-9902-436c-a4d2-a1155e4208c2@oss.nttdata.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2016d3c0-0106-400c-91a1-80a21518fded%40oss.nttdata.com>
Precedence: bulk


On 2025/07/02 16:12, Fujii Masao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2025/07/01 13:52, Nisha Moond wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2025 at 6:12 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>> Is this true starting from v16, when logical replication from standby was introduced?
>>> In other words, in v15 and earlier, only max_slot_wal_keep_size could cause
>>> the wal_status to become "unreserved" or "lost"? I'm wondering where to back-patch
>>> this fix to.
>>>
>>
>> I also think we should back-patch this till v16, since that’s when
>> additional slot invalidation causes were also introduced(commit
>> be87200). And since then “max_slot_wal_keep_size” is no longer the
>> sole reason for “unreserved” or “lost” status.
> 
> Okay, I've prepared two patches:
> 
> - 0001 removes the incorrect line: "If restart_lsn is NULL, this field is null."
>    This should be back-patched to v13.
> - 0002 updates the description of the wal_status to reflect that max_slot_wal_keep_size
>    is not the only cause of the lost state. This should be back-patched to v16.
> 
> Barrng objections, I will commit these patches.

I've pushed the patches. Thanks!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA Japan Corporation