MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ZgQeJDcxB9zYJKIt@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACX1bdaX2gf5ttwk3buiDrgZVV=vM6S1SQKf=Sxhj1HkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JU14-Fz3Ttx_wy=vzDaeTSv=umt7sC3N+4k2aYcdk4=w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACWOz0tEY2vi3OneittGj9+yrQ9A6+6YYb1Cj7L_QrdMVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoAd0BX0L17YxSCbSNbj=3V7dvLVGY0WhwLHAt724rNCZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZgulmKzdqxuBuhCU@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAJpy0uBthb-RG=Xg+mM-G6Xy01JLcBsizJuz+xbti08qP_W7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACVfDBcbybgyga7ia_KiQPAfEi_3=VDOGf2VU8RkJZSQpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zg0QgarM9UlRutLw@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACUmp-F+irHYfNhmo_9yaCo7aGi7ZB20KQcDR3S9eT56hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zg1WqRS/gQrLG2vl@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACUBiRLHF7VYD-0nYVHSvVBSCQ_5OMbP4tE8Ys_rpvQ--A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+0uiKrLMNT9C47fEW8=M8-BLFygsFRCOWcjEiEbayXeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALj2ACUs4k2CUtCt8NyrMx4kOzEh5gY=m_58Wy=aU2k3Ro-33w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUs4k2CUtCt8NyrMx4kOzEh5gY=m_58Wy=aU2k3Ro-33w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:35:01 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1JC45R0P3SsdyBmGv-H9vXO1NgU_DaCvA8Zv0x+gapdXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, 
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JC45R0P3SsdyBmGv-H9vXO1NgU_DaCvA8Zv0x%2BgapdXw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:12=E2=80=AFAM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:48=E2=80=AFAM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.=
com> wrote:
> >
> > The v33-0001 looks good to me. I have made minor changes in the
> > comments/commit message and removed one part of the test which was a
> > bit confusing and didn't seem to add much value. Let me know what you
> > think of the attached?
>
> Thanks for the changes. v34-0001 LGTM.
>

I was doing a final review before pushing 0001 and found that
'inactive_since' could be set twice during startup after promotion,
once while restoring slots and then via ShutDownSlotSync(). The reason
is that ShutDownSlotSync() will be invoked in normal startup on
primary though it won't do anything apart from setting inactive_since
if we have synced slots. I think you need to check 'StandbyMode' in
update_synced_slots_inactive_since() and return if the same is not
set. We can't use 'InRecovery' flag as that will be set even during
crash recovery.

Can you please test this once unless you don't agree with the above theory?

--=20
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.