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]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:45:25 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <TYAPR01MB5866ECFC52FAED493007A2CEF5C99@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CAA4eK1JTTCcMrsMAmz9LSEE6gvGHnTK0u1w0kg9hV6rcFFB5hQ@mail.gmail.com>
<TYAPR01MB5866ECFC52FAED493007A2CEF5C99@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
Sorry for making you bothered by this.
At Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:12:40 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > > Couldn't we maintain an additional static variable "last_applied"
> > > along with last_received?
> > >
> >
> > It won't be easy to maintain the meaning of last_applied because there
> > are cases where we don't apply the change directly. For example, in
> > case of streaming xacts, we will just keep writing it to the file,
> > now, say, due to some reason, we have to send the feedback, then it
> > will not allow you to update the latest write locations. This would
> > then become different then what we are doing without the patch.
> > Another point to think about is that we also need to keep the variable
> > updated for keep-alive ('k') messages even though we don't apply
> > anything in that case. Still, other cases to consider are where we
> > have mix of streaming and non-streaming transactions.
>
> I have tried to implement that, but it might be difficult because of a corner
> case related with the initial data sync.
>
> First of all, I have made last_applied to update when
>
> * transactions are committed, prepared, or aborted
> * apply worker receives keepalive message.
Yeah, I vagurly thought that it is enough that the update happens just
befor existing send_feecback() calls. But it turned out to introduce
another unprincipledness..
> I thought during the initial data sync, we must not update the last applied
> triggered by keepalive messages, so following lines were added just after
> updating last_received.
>
> ```
> + if (last_applied < end_lsn && AllTablesyncsReady())
> + last_applied = end_lsn;
> ```
Maybe, the name "last_applied" made you confused. As I mentioned in
another message, the variable points to the remote LSN of last
"processed" 'w/k' messages.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
view thread (2+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)
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