public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Kyotaro Horiguchi <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Disallow quorum uncommitted (with synchronous standbys) txns in logical replication subscribers
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2022 17:27:40 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHg+QDc9sDR3mHBWpu6zyyUB75N2CXvA1Ntv-703yv61UHXrbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAHg+QDc-3bPT52yqB-_J-_8bc6DzpxVVzvQMA99XV_0tqOR9wg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAHg+QDc9sDR3mHBWpu6zyyUB75N2CXvA1Ntv-703yv61UHXrbg@mail.gmail.com>
At Thu, 6 Jan 2022 23:55:01 -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <[email protected]> wrote in
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 11:24 PM Jeff Davis <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2022-01-05 at 23:59 -0800, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM wrote:
> > > I would like to propose a GUC send_Wal_after_quorum_committed which
> > > when set to ON, walsenders corresponds to async standbys and logical
> > > replication workers wait until the LSN is quorum committed on the
> > > primary before sending it to the standby. This not only simplifies
> > > the post failover steps but avoids unnecessary downtime for the async
> > > replicas. Thoughts?
> >
> > Do we need a GUC? Or should we just always require that sync rep is
> > satisfied before sending to async replicas?
> >
>
> I proposed a GUC to not introduce a behavior change by default. I have no
> strong opinion on having a GUC or making the proposed behavior default,
> would love to get others' perspectives as well.
>
>
> >
> > It feels like the sync quorum should always be ahead of the async
> > replicas. Unless I'm missing a use case, or there is some kind of
> > performance gotcha.
> >
>
> I couldn't think of a case that can cause serious performance issues but
> will run some experiments on this and post the numbers.
I think Jeff is saying that "quorum commit" already by definition
means that all out-of-quorum standbys are behind of the
quorum-standbys. I agree to that in a dictionary sense. But I can
think of the case where the response from the top-runner standby
vanishes or gets caught somewhere on network for some reason. In that
case the primary happily checks quorum ignoring the top-runner.
To avoid that misdecision, I can guess two possible "solutions".
One is to serialize WAL sending (of course it is unacceptable at all)
or aotehr is to send WAL to all standbys at once then make the
decision after making sure receiving replies from all standbys (this
is no longer quorum commit in another sense..)
So I'm afraid that there's no sensible solution to avoid the
hiding-forerunner problem on quorum commit.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
view thread (5+ messages)
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]
Subject: Re: Disallow quorum uncommitted (with synchronous standbys) txns in logical replication subscribers
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