Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:12:33 +0000
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
	"Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
	Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com>,
	"Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
	Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,
	Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Message-ID: <Zaou8dA2095gbMPT@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
References: 
 <CAA4eK1+q8R=yEpTMiOZ_Xksdd_Jg3SXvBMxRutHQtkCbdeK_yQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uAU+nzufQwSzyB2YmhPHHn71_=1zkauP4Ra32a_eqbcig@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1KtwFg6Mr1MRnHUUfPotzc2=5UCTq_D2t8x0PM1Lyhk8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD21AoA03f0QKYjiSymGcnROvh1X-3YSqyB-19mkRXt5dfaxFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uCneiKeNuz3B91Wf2LRxAenD3fpaxYfdL09y9qHmvVp+w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uCJ7MKgZnKLAACd-AXN0VbWM5gVJ+GRJ1Za_A2UmF3R0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZaegJe9JpUiQeV+D@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <CAJpy0uBrBc+YNxCGwCjXR+9UJZqM3QvjNq86cBy4K7kp_EXxhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JFhbBf-LywUU0YJUTcKTFjZvbXi-42DwCd-xojWKhRXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJpy0uD+ODUF+D0GX38F_UQYTqA8wvTEUPOCBa-9guLLRMhFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJpy0uD+ODUF+D0GX38F_UQYTqA8wvTEUPOCBa-9guLLRMhFWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zaou8dA2095gbMPT%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:46:51AM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:23 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > 5 === (coming from v62-0002)
> > > > +       Assert(tuplestore_tuple_count(res->tuplestore) == 1);
> > > >
> > > > Is it even possible for the related query to not return only one row? (I think the
> > > > "count" ensures it).
> > >
> > > I think you are right. This assertion was added sometime back on the
> > > basis of feedback on hackers. Let me review that again. I can consider
> > > this comment in the next version.
> > >
> >
> > OTOH, can't we keep the assert as it is but remove "= 1" from
> > "count(*) = 1" in the query. There shouldn't be more than one slot
> > with same name on the primary. Or, am I missing something?
> 
> There will be 1 record max and 0 record if the primary_slot_name is
> invalid. 

I think we'd have exactly one record in all the cases (due to the count):

postgres=# SELECT pg_is_in_recovery(), count(*) FROM pg_replication_slots WHERE 1 = 2;
 pg_is_in_recovery | count
-------------------+-------
 f                 |     0
(1 row)

postgres=# SELECT pg_is_in_recovery(), count(*) FROM pg_replication_slots WHERE 1 = 1;
 pg_is_in_recovery | count
-------------------+-------
 f                 |     1
(1 row)

> Keeping 'count(*)=1' gives the benefit that it will straight
> away give us true/false indicating if we are good or not wrt
> primary_slot_name. I feel Assert can be removed and we can simply
> have:
> 
>         if (!tuplestore_gettupleslot(res->tuplestore, true, false, tupslot))
>                 elog(ERROR, "failed to fetch primary_slot_name tuple");
> 

I'd also vote for keeping it as it is and remove the Assert.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com