Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:54:43 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot
 invalidation
Message-ID: <20240325195443.GA2923888@nathanxps13>
References: <CALj2ACVKncd+JZR8BeXSgPO4akqic9kO99Z6pCfeXQKwmye2Og@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JwJdsKMxczGO9tYgEzxp_L2=j0QTeDDk2Tx4-ipGSppw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zf0ump7z3XUSXJBw@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACWuNHJ3qBMmmy6i1YA9V8JDRSaciL2bBM+72bRcqiBE2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zf1TOYzC9fniRft1@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACVUCo48FXWAcxC9LEV6P=xgd-8O=e9aPmTRUZvvH_L7Zw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1LjNB8jBgqLHtf+FKnd=SfMz3TXXs871p7KjG4VHnxafg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXQmGx-L073=8CUSOk3hhe=HL_e6dveYeR9WJcEh+7jvg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1L_UP=ZjCj=+cGEauYXHC1icUEfx16p+B7qrAHZuCx5Ew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACU6tV0bh_MiFBYU7-VK2cj8Gas73htcQjoOv0uvSEG_HA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACU6tV0bh_MiFBYU7-VK2cj8Gas73htcQjoOv0uvSEG_HA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240325195443.GA2923888%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

I apologize that I haven't been able to keep up with this thread for a
while, but I'm happy to see the continued interest in $SUBJECT.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 03:05:44PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> This commit particularly lets one specify the inactive_timeout for
> a slot via SQL functions pg_create_physical_replication_slot and
> pg_create_logical_replication_slot.

Off-list, Bharath brought to my attention that the current proposal was to
set the timeout at the slot level.  While I think that is an entirely
reasonable thing to support, the main use-case I have in mind for this
feature is for an administrator that wants to prevent inactive slots from
causing problems (e.g., transaction ID wraparound) on a server or a number
of servers.  For that use-case, I think a GUC would be much more
convenient.  Perhaps there could be a default inactive slot timeout GUC
that would be used in the absence of a slot-level setting.  Thoughts?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com