Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
<houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Here is V71 patch set which addressed above comments and [1].
>
IIUC, this patch after stopping the retention, it immediately starts
retrying to resume by transitioning through various phases. This can
consume CPU and network resources, if the apply_worker takes a long
time to catch up.
Few other comments:
1.
+ /*
+ * Return if the launcher has not initialized oldest_nonremovable_xid.
+ *
+ * It might seem feasible to directly check the conflict detection
+ * slot.xmin instead of relying on the launcher to assign the worker's
+ * oldest_nonremovable_xid; however, that could lead to a race condition
+ * where slot.xmin is set to InvalidTransactionId immediately after the
+ * check. In such cases, oldest_nonremovable_xid would no longer be
+ * protected by a replication slot and could become unreliable if a
+ * wraparound occurs.
+ */
+ if (!TransactionIdIsValid(nonremovable_xid))
+ return;
I understand the reason why we get assigned the worker's
non_removable_xid from launcher but all this makes the code complex to
understand. Isn't there any other way to achieve it? One naïve and
inefficient way could be to just restart the worker probably after
updating its retentionactive flag. I am not suggesting to make this
change but just a brainstorming point.
2. The function should_stop_conflict_info_retention() is invoked from
wait_for_local_flush() and then it can lead further state
transitioning which doesn't appear neat and makes code difficult to
understand.
3.
+ /*
+ * If conflict info retention was previously stopped due to a timeout, and
+ * the time required to advance the non-removable transaction ID has now
+ * decreased to within acceptable limits, resume the rentention.
+ */
+ if (!MySubscription->retentionactive)
+ {
+ rdt_data->phase = RDT_RESUME_CONFLICT_INFO_RETENTION;
+ process_rdt_phase_transition(rdt_data, false);
+ return;
+ }
In this check, where do we check the time has come in acceptable
range? Can you update comments to make it clear?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
Commits
-
Fix intermittent BF failures in 035_conflicts.
- 0f42206531b3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Resume conflict-relevant data retention automatically.
- 0d48d393d465 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix intermittent test failure introduced in 6456c6e2c4.
- 01d793698f59 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix Coverity issue reported in commit a850be2fe.
- 5ac3c1ac22cb 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add test to prevent premature removal of conflict-relevant data.
- 6456c6e2c4ad 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Post-commit review fixes for 228c370868.
- 1f7e9ba3ac4e 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add max_retention_duration option to subscriptions.
- a850be2fe653 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Detect and report update_deleted conflicts.
- fd5a1a0c3e56 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Preserve conflict-relevant data during logical replication.
- 228c37086855 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Integrate FullTransactionIds deeper into two-phase code
- 62a17a92833d 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Improve checks for GUC recovery_target_timeline
- fd7d7b719137 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Prevent excessive delays before launching new logrep workers.
- fd519419c948 18.0 cited
-
Keep WAL segments by slot's last saved restart LSN
- ca307d5cec90 18.0 cited
-
Rework some code handling pg_subscription data in psql and pg_dump
- 08691ea958c2 18.0 cited
-
Use generateClonedIndexStmt to propagate CREATE INDEX to partitions.
- 68dfecbef210 18.0 cited