Horton

Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>

View thread
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>, fabriziomello@gmail.com, tushar <tushar.ahuja@enterprisedb.com>, Rahila Syed <rahila.syed@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-04-05T15:57:09Z
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.

Hi,

On 4/5/23 3:15 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 6:14 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/5/23 12:28 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 2:41 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
>>> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> minor nitpick:
>>> +
>>> + /* Intentional fall through to session cancel */
>>> + /* FALLTHROUGH */
>>>
>>> Do we need to repeat fall through twice in different ways?
>>>
>>
>> Do you mean, you'd prefer what was done in v52/0002?
>>
> 
> No, I was thinking that instead of two comments, we need one here.
> But, now thinking about it, do we really need to fall through in this
> case, if so why? Shouldn't this case be handled after
> PROCSIG_RECOVERY_CONFLICT_DATABASE?
> 

Indeed, thanks! Done in V61 posted up-thread.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com