Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b495e29a-4131-81f6-7d0d-dcbb51cc5152@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: The description for pg_replication_slots.restart_lsn
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
On 2020/06/25 14:48, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/06/25 10:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> On 2020-Jun-17, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >>> The document explains that restart_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view is: >>> >>> The address (LSN) of oldest WAL which still might be required by >>> the consumer of this slot and thus won't be automatically removed >>> during checkpoints. >>> >>> But the latter part is not true in v13 thanks to max_slot_wal_keep_size. >>> I think that we need to update it as follows. Thought? >>> >>> The address (LSN) of oldest WAL which still might be required by >>> the consumer of this slot and thus won't be automatically removed >>> during checkpoints unless this LSN gets behind more than >>> max_slot_wal_keep_size from the current LSN. >> >> We just added the invalidated_at LSN to replication slots; while working >> on the tests for that today, I was thinking that it might be useful to >> display that LSN in pg_replication_slots. What do you think of the idea >> of publishing the invalidated_at LSN in pg_replication_slot.restart_lsn >> when the slot is invalid? > > I like having separate column for invalidated_at because (at least for me) > it's a bit confusing to report the different meaning values in the same column > depending on the state. Is there any other objection to the patch? If nothing, I'd like to push it. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: