public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:21:32 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1++=fOpmsQKugQQRtQr2wmiintjKEhpuOch9=phxirAfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACU-sJdiLfAcWd+8hnt4HSojH0UWFGnaGr9gxb2bYzYYSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALj2ACW4aUe-_uFQOjdWCEN-xXoLGhmvRFnL8SNw_TZ5nJe+aw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALj2ACUbp55FXw2cp_noHexQXrSLh4Cgm0=3kxz0G5WShNTDwg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALj2ACWgACB4opnbqi=x7Hc4aqcgkXoLsh1VB+gfidXaDQNu_Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACWE9asmvN1B18LqfHE8uBuWGsCEP7OO5trRCxPtTPeHVA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALj2ACWbR9ck1PKyqT2agd2XCEq8L=D=X1Uw566yhA9SgXspAw@mail.gmail.com>
<20240301221108.GB3024365@nathanxps13>
<CALj2ACUprrvq=R9WBnCEtguBhSp0X+krTCGDvkHyBdawyex-kA@mail.gmail.com>
<20240303214434.GA3036597@nathanxps13>
<CAA4eK1+NUeb21bYa9K5mVsFHcw-xodGLkN9QoqJXym7sD3LtZA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACVr8ra-yp8CwiBq=Pc9Kkq64z=zDvoFxMK3K4wSDhKMmg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1KxsMg4bnxRZ0U3dZ3irFoR2=TfUCOFig3ccHoRPp5iWg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACU-sJdiLfAcWd+8hnt4HSojH0UWFGnaGr9gxb2bYzYYSA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 8:55 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:26 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hm. I get the concern. Are you okay with having inavlidation_reason
> > > separately for both logical and physical slots? In such a case,
> > > logical slots that got invalidated on the standby will have duplicate
> > > info in conflict_reason and invalidation_reason, is this fine?
> > >
> >
> > If we have duplicate information in two columns that could be
> > confusing for users. BTW, isn't the recovery conflict occur only
> > because of rows_removed and wal_level_insufficient reasons? The
> > wal_removed or the new reasons you are proposing can't happen because
> > of recovery conflict. Am, I missing something here?
>
> My understanding aligns with yours that the rows_removed and
> wal_level_insufficient invalidations can occur only upon recovery
> conflict.
>
> FWIW, a test named 'synchronized slot has been invalidated' in
> 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl inappropriately uses
> conflict_reason = 'wal_removed' logical slot on standby. As per the
> above understanding, it's inappropriate to use conflict_reason here
> because wal_removed invalidation doesn't conflict with recovery.
>
> > > Another idea is to make 'conflict_reason text' as a 'conflicting
> > > boolean' again (revert 007693f2a3), and have 'invalidation_reason
> > > text' for both logical and physical slots. So, whenever 'conflicting'
> > > is true, one can look at invalidation_reason for the reason for
> > > conflict. How does this sound?
> > >
> >
> > So, does this mean that conflicting will only be true for some of the
> > reasons (say wal_level_insufficient, rows_removed, wal_removed) and
> > logical slots but not for others? I think that will also not eliminate
> > the duplicate information as user could have deduced that from single
> > column.
>
> So, how about we turn conflict_reason to only report the reasons that
> actually cause conflict with recovery for logical slots, something
> like below, and then have invalidation_cause as a generic column for
> all sorts of invalidation reasons for both logical and physical slots?
>
If our above understanding is correct then coflict_reason will be a
subset of invalidation_reason. If so, whatever way we arrange this
information, there will be some sort of duplicity unless we just have
one column 'invalidation_reason' and update the docs to interpret it
correctly for conflicts.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
view thread (18+ 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]
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1++=fOpmsQKugQQRtQr2wmiintjKEhpuOch9=phxirAfg@mail.gmail.com>
* 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