Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ZgRFZ0CRZYXQNG6R@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: