Re: Newly created replication slot may be invalidated by checkpoint
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Vitaly Davydov <v.davydov@postgrespro.ru>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>,
"suyu.cmj" <mengjuan.cmj@alibaba-inc.com>, tomas <tomas@vondra.me>, michael <michael@paquier.xyz>, "bharath.rupireddyforpostgres" <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-11-11T03:06:46Z
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 →
-
Prevent invalidation of newly synced replication slots.
- 3243c0177efb 17.8 landed
- 919c9fa13cd0 18.2 landed
- 851f6649cc18 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Prevent invalidation of newly created replication slots.
- 3510ebeb0dfa 17.8 landed
- 24cce33c332a 16.12 landed
- aae05622a7cb 15.16 landed
- 7406df60569f 14.21 landed
- d3ceb20846e4 18.2 landed
- 006dd4b2e5b3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Fix re-distributing previously distributed invalidation messages during logical decoding.
- 45c357e0e85d 17.6 cited
-
Keep WAL segments by the flushed value of the slot's restart LSN
- 2090edc6f32f 17.6 cited
-
Keep WAL segments by slot's last saved restart LSN
- ca307d5cec90 18.0 cited
On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 2:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:48 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 6:46 PM Vitaly Davydov <v.davydov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > > There is one subtle thing. Once, the operation of restart_lsn assignment is not
> > > an atomic, the following scenario may happen theoretically:
> > > 1. Read GetRedoRecPtr() in the backend (ReplicationSlotReserveWal)
> > > 2. Assign a new redo LSN in the checkpointer
> > > 3. Call ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN() in the checkpointer
> > > 3. Assign the old redo LSN to restart_lsn
> > >
> > > In this scenario, the restart_lsn will point to a previous redo LSN and it will
> > > be not protected by the new redo LSN. This scenario is unlikely, but it can
> > > happen theoretically. I have no ideas how to deal with it, except of assigning
> > > restart_lsn under XLogCtl->info_lck lock to avoid concurrent modification of
> > > XLogCtl->RecoRecPtr until it is assigned to restart_lsn of a creating slot.
> > >
> > > In case of recovery, when GetXLogReplayRecPtr() is used, the protection by
> > > redo LSN seems to work as well, because a new redo LSN is taken from the latest
> > > replayed checkpoint. Thus, it is guaranteed that GetXLogReplayRecPtr() will not
> > > be less than the new redo LSN, if it is called right after assignment of redo
> > > LSN in CreateRestartPoint().
> >
> > Thank you for highlighting this scenario. I've reviewed it. I think
> > we could avoid it by covering appropriate parts of
> > ReplicationSlotReserveWal() and Create{Check|Restart}Point() by a new
> > LWLock. The draft patch is attached. What do you think?
> >
>
> The fix seems to be only provided for bank branches, but IIUC the
> problem can happen in HEAD as well. In Head, how about acquiring
> ReplicationSlotAllocationLock in Exclusive mode during
> ReplicationSlotReserveWal? This lock is acquired in SHARE mode in
> CheckPointReplicationSlots. So, this should make our calculations
> correct and avoid invalidating the newly created slot.
>
We need to check whether a similar change is required in
reserve_wal_for_local_slot() as well for sync slots.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.