Horton

Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, 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: 2023-04-08T04:22:47Z
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.

On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 9:31 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-08 09:15:05 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The new approach for invalidation looks clean. BTW, I see minor
> > inconsistency in the following two error messages (errmsg):
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
>
> > if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated == RS_INVAL_WAL)
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > errmsg("can no longer get changes from replication slot \"%s\"",
> > NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
> > errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it exceeded the
> > maximum reserved size.")));
> >
> > if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE)
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > errmsg("cannot read from logical replication slot \"%s\"",
> > NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
> > errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting
> > with recovery.")));
> >
> > Won't it be better to keep the same errmsg in the above two cases?
>
> Probably - do you have a preference? I think the former is a bit better?
>

+1 for the former.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.