Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:08 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:31 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:25 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Okay.  I see your point. Yes, it was non-blocking earlier but it was
> > > > not giving ERROR, it was just dumping in logilfe that primary is
> > > > behind and thus slot-sync could not be done.
> > > >
> > > > If we continue using the non-blocking mode, there’s a risk that the
> > > > API may never successfully sync the slots. This is because it
> > > > eventually drops the temporary slot on exit, and when it tries to
> > > > create a new one later on subsequent call, it’s likely that the new
> > > > slot will again be ahead of the primary. This may happen if we have
> > > > continuous ongoing writes on the primary and the logical slot is not
> > > > being consumed at the same pace.
> > > >
> > > > My preference would be to avoid including such an option as it is
> > > > confusing. With such an option in place, users may think that
> > > > slot-sync is completed while that may not be the case.
> > >
> > > Fair enough
> > >
> >
> > I think if we want we may return bool and return false when sync is
> > not complete say due to promotion or other reason like timeout.
> > However, at this stage it is not very clear whether it will be useful
> > to provide additional timeout parameter. But we can consider retruning
> > true/false depending on whether we are successful in syncing the slots
> > or not.
>
> I am not very sure if in the current scenario, such a return-value
> will have any value addition. Since this function will be waiting
> indefinitely until all the slots are synced, it is supposed to return
> true in such normal scenarios. If it is interrupted by promotion or
> user cancels it manually, then it is supposed to return false. But in
> those cases, a more helpful approach would be to log a clear WARNING
> or ERROR message like "sync interrupted by promotion" (or similar
> reasons), rather than relying on a return value. In future, if we plan
> to add a timeout-parameter, then this return value makes more sense as
> in normal scenarios as well, as it can easily return false if the
> timeout value is short or the number of slots are huge or are stuck
> waiting on primary.
>
> Additionally, if we do return a value, there may be an expectation
> that the API should also provide details on the list of slots that
> couldn't be synced. That could introduce unnecessary complexity at
> this stage. We can avoid it for now and consider adding such
> enhancements later if we receive relevant customer feedback.
>

makes sense.

> Please
> note that our recommended approach for syncing slots still remains the
> 'slot sync worker' method.
>

Right.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.