public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
To: Amit Kapila <[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: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 20:55:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CALj2ACU-sJdiLfAcWd+8hnt4HSojH0UWFGnaGr9gxb2bYzYYSA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4eK1KxsMg4bnxRZ0U3dZ3irFoR2=TfUCOFig3ccHoRPp5iWg@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>
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?
ReplicationSlotInvalidationCause cause = slot_contents.data.invalidated;
if (slot_contents.data.database == InvalidOid ||
cause == RS_INVAL_NONE ||
cause != RS_INVAL_HORIZON ||
cause != RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL)
{
nulls[i++] = true;
}
else
{
Assert(cause == RS_INVAL_HORIZON || cause == RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL);
values[i++] = CStringGetTextDatum(SlotInvalidationCauses[cause]);
}
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
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: <CALj2ACU-sJdiLfAcWd+8hnt4HSojH0UWFGnaGr9gxb2bYzYYSA@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