Horton

Re: How can end users know the cause of LR slot sync delays?

Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal.oss@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-09-17T14:49:05Z
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. Rename column slotsync_skip_at to slotsync_last_skip.

  2. Add slotsync_skip_reason column to pg_replication_slots view.

  3. Fix test failure caused by commit 76b78721ca.

  4. Fix a BF failure caused by commit 76b78721ca.

  5. Add slotsync skip statistics.

Hi Amit,

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 5:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 4:24 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Shlok,
> >
> > Thanks for creating the patch. Personally I prefer approach2; approach1 cannot
> > indicate the current status of synchronization, it just shows the history.
> > I feel approach2 has more information than approach1.
> >
>
> I also think so but Ashutosh thought that it would be hacky. Ashutosh,
> did you have an opinion on this matter after seeing the patches?
>

Yes, I’ve looked into both the patches. Approach 1 seems quite
straightforward. In approach 2, we need to pass some additional
arguments to update_local_sync_slot and
update_and_persist_local_synced_slot, which makes it feel a little
less clean compared to approach 1, where we simply add a new function
and call it directly. That said, this is just my view on code
cleanliness, I’m fine with proceeding with approach 2 if that’s
considered the better option.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma,