Re: Physical replication slot advance is not persistent

On 09.01.2020 09:36, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Hello.
>
> At Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:12:16 +0300, Alexey Kondratov <a.kondratov@postgrespro.ru> wrote in
>> On 2019-12-26 16:35, Alexey Kondratov wrote:
>>> Another concern is that ReplicationSlotIsDirty is added with the only
>>> one user. It also cannot be used by SaveSlotToPath due to the
>>> simultaneous usage of both flags dirty and just_dirtied there.
>>> In that way, I hope that we should call ReplicationSlotSave
>>> unconditionally in the pg_replication_slot_advance, so slot will be
>>> saved or not automatically based on the slot->dirty flag. In the same
>>> time, ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin and
>>> ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN should be called by anyone, who
>>> modifies xmin and LSN fields in the slot. Otherwise, currently we are
>>> getting some leaky abstractions.
> Sounds reasonable.

Great, so it seems that we have reached some agreement about who should 
mark slot as dirty, at least for now.

>
>> If someone will utilise old WAL and after that crash will happen
>> between steps 2) and 3), then we start with old value of restart_lsn,
>> but without required WAL. I do not know how to properly reproduce it
>> without gdb and power off, so the chance is pretty low, but still it
>> could be a case.
> In the first place we advance required LSN for every reply message but
> save slot data only at checkpoint on physical repliation.  Such a
> strict guarantee seems too much.
>
> ...
>
> I think we shouldn't touch the paths used by replication protocol. And
> don't we focus on how we make a change of a replication slot from SQL
> interface persistent?  It seems to me that generaly we don't need to
> save dirty slots other than checkpoint, but the SQL function seems
> wanting the change to be saved immediately.
>
> As the result, please find the attached, which is following only the
> first paragraph cited above.

OK, I have definitely overthought that, thanks. This looks like a 
minimal subset of changes that actually solves the bug. I would only 
prefer to keep some additional comments (something like the attached), 
otherwise after half a year it will be unclear again, why we save slot 
unconditionally here.


Regards

-- 
Alexey Kondratov

Postgres Professional https://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company