Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 10:18 PM Nathan Bossart
<nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 07:57:22AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > Alvaro, Nathan, do let us know if you would like to discuss more on
> > the use case for this new GUC idle_replication_slot_timeout?
> > Otherwise, we can proceed with this patch.
>
> I guess I'm not mortally opposed to it.  I just think we really need
> proper backstops against the storage/XID issues more than we need this one,
> and I don't want it to be mistaken for a solution to those problems.
>

Fair enough. I see your point and would like to discuss the other
parameter in a separate thread. I plan to push the 0001 tomorrow after
some more review/testing unless I see any further arguments or
comments.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.