Re: Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot()
От | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aNOwZ5+80nimM7yS@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() ("suyu.cmj" <mengjuan.cmj@alibaba-inc.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 10:38:14PM +0800, suyu.cmj wrote: > Hi, all, > I have a question about a behavioral difference in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() between PG15 (and earlier) and PG16(and later): > In PG15 and earlier: while attempting to acquire a slot, if the slot's restart_lsn advanced to be greater than oldestLSNduring the process, the slot would not be marked invalid. > In PG16 and later: the invalidation decision is made solely based on the initial_restart_lsn captured at the start of thecheck, even if the slot's restart_lsn advances above oldestLSN during the process, the slot may still be marked invalid. > I wonder why not decide whether to mark the slot as invalid based on the slot's current restart_lsn? If a slot's restart_lsnhas already advanced sufficiently during the invalidation process, indicating it's actively being used, shouldn'twe refrain from invalidating it? What is the rationale behind this design change? > Looking forward to your insights. That comes from 818fefd8fd4. Does the wording in the commit message ([1]) and the linked thread ([2]) answer your question? [1]: postgr.es/c/818fefd8fd4 [2]: postgr.es/m/ZaTjW2Xh+TQUCOH0@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: