On 2024-Mar-26, Amit Kapila wrote:
> We have a consensus on inactive_since, so I'll make that change.
Sounds reasonable. So this is a timestamptz if the slot is inactive,
NULL if active, right? What value is it going to have for sync slots?
> I would also like to solicit your opinion on the other slot-level
> parameter we are planning to introduce. This new slot-level parameter
> will be named as inactive_timeout.
Maybe inactivity_timeout?
> This will indicate that once the slot is inactive for the
> inactive_timeout period, we will invalidate the slot. We are also
> discussing to have this parameter (inactive_timeout) as GUC [1]. We
> can have this new parameter both at the slot level and as well as a
> GUC, or just one of those.
replication_slot_inactivity_timeout?
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Tom: There seems to be something broken here.
Teodor: I'm in sackcloth and ashes... Fixed.
http://postgr.es/m/482D1632.8010507@sigaev.ru