public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
To: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Kapila <[email protected]>
Cc: shveta malik <[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: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:28:40 +0000
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoAd0BX0L17YxSCbSNbj=3V7dvLVGY0WhwLHAt724rNCZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALj2ACXEwHxzuP9imWoJKc24HcSB1izPaot7U9XGzX0qGWq3DA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uAyG44xp4pzGd7X+xrJMuPfD0dYC0tA9Gep9zMuALzFGg@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACXh4ur3gk1O-yT+R4sOJtKP6KSYjMYm6d4R-AtVTMhikw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJpy0uDgKwk=hOE-Q5z4nA5kovHKhuspjXn2MhSmApbQW2ck9Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CALj2ACVPaiTHokRzV135UycNozKsLwa-jvcjX7G7rFbHYJLjaA@mail.gmail.com>
<[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>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:07:54PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:18 PM Bharath Rupireddy
>
> FWIW, coming to this thread late, I think that the inactive_since
> should not be synchronized from the primary. The wall clocks are
> different on the primary and the standby so having the primary's
> timestamp on the standby can confuse users, especially when there is a
> big clock drift. Also, as Amit mentioned, inactive_since seems not to
> be consistent with other parameters we copy. The
> replication_slot_inactive_timeout feature should work on the standby
> independent from the primary, like other slot invalidation mechanisms,
> and it should be based on its own local clock.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! So, it looks like that most of us agree to not
sync inactive_since from the primary, I'm fine with that.
> If we want to invalidate the synced slots due to the timeout, I think
> we need to define what is "inactive" for synced slots.
>
> Suppose that the slotsync worker updates the local (synced) slot's
> inactive_since whenever releasing the slot, irrespective of the actual
> LSNs (or other slot parameters) having been updated. I think that this
> idea cannot handle a slot that is not acquired on the primary. In this
> case, the remote slot is inactive but the local slot is regarded as
> active. WAL files are piled up on the standby (and on the primary) as
> the slot's LSNs don't move forward. I think we want to regard such a
> slot as "inactive" also on the standby and invalidate it because of
> the timeout.
I think that makes sense to somehow link inactive_since on the standby to
the actual LSNs (or other slot parameters) being updated or not.
> > > Now, the other concern is that calling GetCurrentTimestamp()
> > > could be costly when the values for the slot are not going to be
> > > updated but if that happens we can optimize such that before acquiring
> > > the slot we can have some minimal pre-checks to ensure whether we need
> > > to update the slot or not.
>
> If we use such pre-checks, another problem might happen; it cannot
> handle a case where the slot is acquired on the primary but its LSNs
> don't move forward. Imagine a logical replication conflict happened on
> the subscriber, and the logical replication enters the retry loop. In
> this case, the remote slot's inactive_since gets updated for every
> retry, but it looks inactive from the standby since the slot LSNs
> don't change. Therefore, only the local slot could be invalidated due
> to the timeout but probably we don't want to regard such a slot as
> "inactive".
>
> Another idea I came up with is that the slotsync worker updates the
> local slot's inactive_since to the local timestamp only when the
> remote slot might have got inactive. If the remote slot is acquired by
> someone, the local slot's inactive_since is also NULL. If the remote
> slot gets inactive, the slotsync worker sets the local timestamp to
> the local slot's inactive_since. Since the remote slot could be
> acquired and released before the slotsync worker gets the remote slot
> data again, if the remote slot's inactive_since > the local slot's
> inactive_since, the slotsync worker updates the local one.
Then I think we would need to be careful about time zone comparison.
> IOW, we
> detect whether the remote slot was acquired and released since the
> last synchronization, by checking the remote slot's inactive_since.
> This idea seems to handle these cases I mentioned unless I'm missing
> something, but it requires for the slotsync worker to update
> inactive_since in a different way than other parameters.
>
> Or a simple solution is that the slotsync worker updates
> inactive_since as it does for non-synced slots, and disables
> timeout-based slot invalidation for synced slots.
Yeah, I think the main question to help us decide is: do we want to invalidate
"inactive" synced slots locally (in addition to synchronizing the invalidation
from the primary)?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
view thread (46+ 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: <[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