Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 16:12:23 +0000
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>,
	Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot
 invalidation
Message-ID: <ZgRFZ0CRZYXQNG6R@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
References: <CALj2ACUXS0SfbHzsX8bqo+7CZhocsV52Kiu7OWGb5HVPAmJqnA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZgMLTBD3xJIP9W93@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACX-M+Lx6Qv4id7HtqqTKVKA_ti4whK9cgpTPHdHLi943w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXEwHxzuP9imWoJKc24HcSB1izPaot7U9XGzX0qGWq3DA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uAyG44xp4pzGd7X+xrJMuPfD0dYC0tA9Gep9zMuALzFGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACXh4ur3gk1O-yT+R4sOJtKP6KSYjMYm6d4R-AtVTMhikw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uDgKwk=hOE-Q5z4nA5kovHKhuspjXn2MhSmApbQW2ck9Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALj2ACVPaiTHokRzV135UycNozKsLwa-jvcjX7G7rFbHYJLjaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZgQeJDcxB9zYJKIt@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CALj2ACX1bdaX2gf5ttwk3buiDrgZVV=vM6S1SQKf=Sxhj1HkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACX1bdaX2gf5ttwk3buiDrgZVV=vM6S1SQKf=Sxhj1HkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZgRFZ0CRZYXQNG6R%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 09:00:37PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:54 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 05:55:05PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:42 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > Please see the attached v28 patch.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > 1 === sorry I missed it in the previous review
> >
> >         if (!(RecoveryInProgress() && slot->data.synced))
> > +       {
> >                 now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> > +               update_inactive_since = true;
> > +       }
> > +       else
> > +               update_inactive_since = false;
> >
> > I think update_inactive_since is not needed, we could rely on (now > 0) instead.
> 
> Thought of using it, but, at the expense of readability. I prefer to
> use a variable instead.

That's fine too.

> However, I changed the variable to be more meaningful to is_slot_being_synced.

Yeah makes sense and even easier to read.

v29-0001 LGTM.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com