Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LEkFHWHnTP7F9tdgoKC57uRM+UP3J-W2wBhmxsViQ2oQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Fix assert failure when decoding XLOG_PARAMETER_CHANGE on primary
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:22 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 1:16 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Agreed, I'm fine with leaving InRecovery in this condition. I think > > the point is whether we should add StandbyMode to the condition or > > not. I think if we do that, we would end up with the same error in the > > above scenario I described. So does the following condition make > > sense? > > > > if (InRecovery && > > xlrec.wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL && > > wal_level >= WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL) > > InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots(RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL, > > 0, InvalidOid, > > InvalidTransactionId); > > > > This will still be true for crash-recovery as the InRecovery flag will > be true for that case as well. I think we should go with your v2 patch > approach for HEAD and back-branches. > Any opinion on how to proceed here? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: