public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Drouvot, Bertrand <[email protected]>
To: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 07:45:28 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JzuAbK-bT_=W-SxP9acjOa==4neO_v9eR92uGGFeRwmA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAE9k0PnGmQ97ikLy2oBDoom72FsV_x+H9JuptJ4ysx=CFM-+kQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAE9k0Pn80FMhkUZAPyPCLWDYnOcTmxKN3Q3TNNv1m4V99qG-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
<YgWH4/[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1LrZuDLGu6saZ8RDs7gKLM0dmafq+9oqRPKKN1cEEao_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1LZXLnqSh69XbpC-CrKGdUJTmh7-JPmVANuNwisOHZ0eQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1JzuAbK-bT_=W-SxP9acjOa==4neO_v9eR92uGGFeRwmA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 6/20/23 12:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In such a case (slot valid on the primary but invalidated on the standby) then I think we
>> could drop and recreate the invalidated slot on the standby.
>>
>
> Will it be safe? Because after recreating the slot, it will reserve
> the new WAL location and build the snapshot based on that which might
> miss some important information in the snapshot. For example, to
> update the slot's position with new information from the primary, the
> patch uses pg_logical_replication_slot_advance() which means it will
> process all records and update the snapshot via
> DecodeCommit->SnapBuildCommitTxn().
Your concern is that the slot could have been consumed on the standby?
I mean, if we suppose the "synchronized" slot can't be consumed on the standby then
drop/recreate such an invalidated slot would be ok?
Asking, because I'm not sure we should allow consumption of a "synchronized" slot
until the standby gets promoted.
When the patch has been initially proposed, logical decoding from a standby
was not implemented yet.
> The other related thing is that do we somehow need to ensure that WAL
> is replayed on standby before moving the slot's position to the target
> location received from the primary?
Yeah, will check if this is currently done that way in the patch proposal.
>>> BTW, does the patch handles drop of logical slots on standby when the
>>> same slot is dropped on publisher/primary?
>>>
>>
>> from what I've seen, yes it looks like it behaves that way (will look closer).
>>
>
> Okay, I have asked because I don't see a call to ReplicationSlotDrop()
> in the patch.
>
Right. I'd need to look closer to understand how it works (for the moment
the "only" thing I've done was the re-base shared up-thread).
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
view thread (43+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox