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

On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 8:42 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Pushed after minor modifications.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.