Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys
Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Reduce the log level in 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl.
- 3034dc56ef4b 16.0 landed
-
035_standby_logical_decoding: Add missing waits for replication
- 57411c82ce86 16.0 landed
-
For cascading replication, wake physical and logical walsenders separately
- e101dfac3a53 16.0 landed
-
Handle logical slot conflicts on standby
- 26669757b6a7 16.0 landed
-
Support invalidating replication slots due to horizon and wal_level
- be87200efd93 16.0 landed
-
Prevent use of invalidated logical slot in CreateDecodingContext()
- 4397abd0a2af 16.0 landed
-
Replace replication slot's invalidated_at LSN with an enum
- 15f8203a5975 16.0 landed
-
Pass down table relation into more index relation functions
- 61b313e47eb9 16.0 landed
-
Assert only valid flag bits are passed to visibilitymap_set()
- a88a18b1250b 16.0 landed
-
Remove unused _bt_delitems_delete() argument.
- dc43492e46c7 14.0 cited
-
Add xl_btree_delete optimization.
- d2e5e20e5711 13.0 cited
Attachments
- v57-0006-Doc-changes-describing-details-about-logical-dec.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0006
- v57-0005-New-TAP-test-for-logical-decoding-on-standby.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0005
- v57-0004-Fixing-Walsender-corner-case-with-logical-decodi.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0004
- v57-0003-Allow-logical-decoding-on-standby.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0003
- v57-0002-Arrange-for-a-new-pg_stat_database_conflicts-and.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0002
- v57-0001-Handle-logical-slot-conflicts-on-standby.patch (text/plain) patch v57-0001
Hi, On 4/3/23 8:10 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote: > Hi, > > On 4/3/23 7:35 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 4:26 AM Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote: >> >> Agreed, even Bertrand and myself discussed the same approach few >> emails above. BTW, if we have this selective logic to wake >> physical/logical walsenders and for standby's, we only wake logical >> walsenders at the time of ApplyWalRecord() then do we need the new >> conditional variable enhancement being discussed, and if so, why? >> > > Thank you both for this new idea and discussion. In that case I don't think > we need the new CV API and the use of a CV anymore. As just said up-thread I'll submit > a new proposal with this new approach. > Please find enclosed V57 implementing the new approach in 0004. With the new approach in place the TAP tests (0005) work like a charm (no delay and even after a promotion). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com