public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
Cc: shveta malik <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:35:01 +0530
Message-ID: <CAA4eK1JC45R0P3SsdyBmGv-H9vXO1NgU_DaCvA8Zv0x+gapdXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACUs4k2CUtCt8NyrMx4kOzEh5gY=m_58Wy=aU2k3Ro-33w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CALj2ACX1bdaX2gf5ttwk3buiDrgZVV=vM6S1SQKf=Sxhj1HkzQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1JU14-Fz3Ttx_wy=vzDaeTSv=umt7sC3N+4k2aYcdk4=w@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACWOz0tEY2vi3OneittGj9+yrQ9A6+6YYb1Cj7L_QrdMVg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoAd0BX0L17YxSCbSNbj=3V7dvLVGY0WhwLHAt724rNCZA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAJpy0uBthb-RG=Xg+mM-G6Xy01JLcBsizJuz+xbti08qP_W7AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACVfDBcbybgyga7ia_KiQPAfEi_3=VDOGf2VU8RkJZSQpw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CALj2ACUmp-F+irHYfNhmo_9yaCo7aGi7ZB20KQcDR3S9eT56hg@mail.gmail.com>
<Zg1WqRS/[email protected]>
<CALj2ACUBiRLHF7VYD-0nYVHSvVBSCQ_5OMbP4tE8Ys_rpvQ--A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA4eK1+0uiKrLMNT9C47fEW8=M8-BLFygsFRCOWcjEiEbayXeQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACUs4k2CUtCt8NyrMx4kOzEh5gY=m_58Wy=aU2k3Ro-33w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:12 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:48 AM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The v33-0001 looks good to me. I have made minor changes in the
> > comments/commit message and removed one part of the test which was a
> > bit confusing and didn't seem to add much value. Let me know what you
> > think of the attached?
>
> Thanks for the changes. v34-0001 LGTM.
>
I was doing a final review before pushing 0001 and found that
'inactive_since' could be set twice during startup after promotion,
once while restoring slots and then via ShutDownSlotSync(). The reason
is that ShutDownSlotSync() will be invoked in normal startup on
primary though it won't do anything apart from setting inactive_since
if we have synced slots. I think you need to check 'StandbyMode' in
update_synced_slots_inactive_since() and return if the same is not
set. We can't use 'InRecovery' flag as that will be set even during
crash recovery.
Can you please test this once unless you don't agree with the above theory?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
view thread (98+ 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]
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1JC45R0P3SsdyBmGv-H9vXO1NgU_DaCvA8Zv0x+gapdXw@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