Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-03-14T06:57:26Z
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. Add a test for commit ac0e33136a using the injection point.

  2. Invalidate inactive replication slots.

  3. Fix incorrect slot type in BuildTupleHashTableExt

  4. Allow synced slots to have their inactive_since.

  5. Change last_inactive_time to inactive_since in pg_replication_slots.

  6. Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.

  7. Track invalidation_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  8. Add option force_initdb to PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster:init()

  9. Add a failover option to subscriptions.

  10. Allow setting failover property in the replication command.

  11. Allow to enable failover property for replication slots via SQL API.

  12. Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  13. Log messages for replication slot acquisition and release.

  14. Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

  15. Fix corruption due to vacuum_defer_cleanup_age underflowing 64bit xids

  16. meson: Add initial version of meson based build system

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 10:16 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 11:13 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks. v8-0001 is how it looks. Please see the v8 patch set with this change.
> >
> > JFYI, the patch does not apply to the head. There is a conflict in
> > multiple files.
>
> Thanks for looking into this. I noticed that the v8 patches needed
> rebase. Before I go do anything with the patches, I'm trying to gain
> consensus on the design. Following is the summary of design choices
> we've discussed so far:
> 1) conflict_reason vs invalidation_reason.
> 2) When to compute the XID age?
>

I feel we should focus on two things (a) one is to introduce a new
column invalidation_reason, and (b) let's try to first complete
invalidation due to timeout. We can look into XID stuff if time
permits, remember, we don't have ample time left.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.