Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

bdrouvotAWS <bdrouvot@amazon.com>

From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot@amazon.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>, <fabriziomello@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>, "[pgdg] Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Rahila Syed <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-09-08T10:08:43Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. Reduce the log level in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.

  2. 035_standby_logical_decoding: Add missing waits for replication

  3. For cascading replication, wake physical and logical walsenders separately

  4. Handle logical slot conflicts on standby

  5. Support invalidating replication slots due to horizon and wal_level

  6. Prevent use of invalidated logical slot in CreateDecodingContext()

  7. Replace replication slot's invalidated_at LSN with an enum

  8. Pass down table relation into more index relation functions

  9. Assert only valid flag bits are passed to visibilitymap_set()

  10. Remove unused _bt_delitems_delete() argument.

  11. Add xl_btree_delete optimization.

Attachments

Hi Andres,

On 8/6/21 1:27 PM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/2/21 6:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> While working on this I found a, somewhat substantial, issue:
>>> If so, do you already have in mind a way to handle this? (I thought you
>>> already had in mind a way to handle it so the question)
>> Yes. I think we need to add a condition variable to be able to wait for
>> WAL positions to change. Either multiple condition variables (one for
>> the flush position, one for the replay position), or one that just
>> changes more often. That way one can wait for apply without a race
>> condition.
>>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Wouldn't a condition variable on the replay position be enough? I 
> don't get why the proposed one on the flush position is needed.

Please find enclosed a patch proposal to address those corner cases.

I think (but may be wrong) that the condition variable on the flush 
position would be needed only for the walsender(s) on non Standby node, 
that's why:

  * I made use of a condition variable on the replay position only.

  * The walsender waits on it in WalSndWaitForWal() only if recovery is
    in progress.

For simplicity to discuss those corner cases, this is a dedicated patch 
that can be applied on top of v23 patches shared previously.

Thanks

Bertrand

>
>>> if not, what kind of additional 
tests would you like to see?
>> A few catalog rows being removed (e.g. due to DELETE and then VACUUM
>> *without* full) and a standby without hot_standby_feedback catching
>> that.
>
> Test added in v23 attached.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bertrand
>