public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
To: Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <[email protected]>
Cc: Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email protected]>
Cc: John H <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:45:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CALj2ACVD0_DhCQ_QOAa7F=nFv8+ZGsHR8SbOc-FmuV8ZrV92HQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <OS9PR01MB121490BA24FFD0AFF85C7FF81F553A@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CA+-JvFsMHckBMzsu5Ov9HCG3AFbMh056hHy1FiXazBRtZ9pFBg@mail.gmail.com>
<OSCPR01MB149667506BCFD684FEFDCB919F511A@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CALj2ACUmPbkcj4y4oeXvzUkBejG68QDtrFF7QHDC_qz2vQcTCg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAHg+QDfnK7tQxsEZox=kOkYfqANmL70mwn0N=eRrJxE1Z+1ygg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACX_o+dKeAaK76mpAtG646UnDHpGUWziUkCvicVz8mz6=A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoATM=Un8ejnbcDQ7q+CaCoxpkA7Ln9bacvQEoymqvjPug@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACUmUb=CLEyfsQrW0WAkF6Y9fiBfG6pnPjepfOM7A1XReA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoAg6x57a8LoP2s+0vgizp9QGHcLGJL9bwh7kzEJq3arBg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACWcaSkfMAQu3s6ZkTZuoFvVRD=DkxXbBwC33PL9+kzsqw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoBEBqQONiZxvnUYOu814yB2tRPrmX=7KqvL+f3ae7250w@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACUenekLgjMr8x4DyuU=zKZ4eNqW9XF-1PovSctkY2VA0Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFC+b6pO44=zGqwijzrcyGGTYCM51Y7zS5uQX0_nWjsxW9i3QQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACU=A31kqHELyaF-=2vnyed=cO2JNQt+vY92KtHLF-m8sg@mail.gmail.com>
<OS9PR01MB121490BA24FFD0AFF85C7FF81F553A@OS9PR01MB12149.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 12:25 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Bharath,
>
> Thanks for re-working the project.
Thank you for looking into this.
> While seeing the old discussion, I found that Robert Haas was agaist the XID-based
> invalidation, because it's difficult to determine the cutoff age [1].
> Can you clarify your thought against the point? Are you focusing on solving the
> wraparound issues, not for bloated instance issue?
> The code may not be accepted unless we got his agreement.
>
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/[email protected]...
I summarized what others (Nathan, Robert, Amit, Alvaro, Bertrand) said
about it here with my responses:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACVY%2BFd5vC0VjW%3D5VDK9mmt-Y%2BPDZxnBp8ngGAZc24Vv9g%40ma....
Please have a look.
A good setting for this in production scenarios is to set
max_slot_xid_age to vacuum_failsafe_age (1.6B) or little less, so that
autovacuum invalidates the slot before entering failsafe mode,
unblocking datfrozenxid advancement and avoiding XID wraparound
without manual VACUUM or downtime. I added a test for this in the 0002
patch. Please have a look.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
view thread (31+ messages) latest in thread
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACVD0_DhCQ_QOAa7F=nFv8+ZGsHR8SbOc-FmuV8ZrV92HQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox