public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Bertrand Drouvot <[email protected]>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <[email protected]>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[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 08:33:40 +0000
Message-ID: <ZgvC5CocS/[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALj2ACVNLjnzcRz2Wpx2owgWkJ52jnOgPxUzUwzi7Wh4-36P7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <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>
<[email protected]>
<CALj2ACVNLjnzcRz2Wpx2owgWkJ52jnOgPxUzUwzi7Wh4-36P7g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:41:35PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 11:58 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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)?
>
> I think this approach looks way simpler than the other one. The other
> approach of linking inactive_since on the standby for synced slots to
> the actual LSNs (or other slot parameters) being updated or not looks
> more complicated, and might not go well with the end user. However,
> we need to be able to say why we don't invalidate synced slots due to
> inactive timeout unlike the wal_removed invalidation that can happen
> right now on the standby for synced slots. This leads us to define
> actually what a slot being active means. Is syncing the data from the
> remote slot considered as the slot being active?
>
> On the other hand, it may not sound great if we don't invalidate
> synced slots due to inactive timeout even though they hold resources
> such as WAL and XIDs.
Right and the "only" benefit then would be to give an idea as to when the last
sync did occur on the local slot.
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: <ZgvC5CocS/[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