Horton

Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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: 2023-02-16T04:39:22Z
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 Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:48 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-15 18:02:11 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Thanks Andres. I have one more query (both for you and Bertrand). I
> > don't know if this has already been answered somewhere in this mail
> > thread, if yes, please let me know the mail that answers this query.
> >
> > Will there be a problem if we mandate the use of physical replication
> > slots and hot_standby_feedback to support minimum LD on standby. I
> > know people can do a physical replication setup without a replication
> > slot or even with hot_standby_feedback turned off, but are we going to
> > have any issue if we ask them to use a physical replication slot and
> > turn on hot_standby_feedback for LD on standby. This will reduce the
> > code changes required to do conflict handling for logical slots on
> > standby which is being done by v50-0001 and v50-0002* patches
> > currently.
>
> I don't think it would. E.g. while restoring from archives we can't rely on
> knowing that the slot still exists on the primary.
>
> We can't just do corrupt things, including potentially crashing, when the
> configuration is wrong. We can't ensure that the configuration is accurate all
> the time. So we need to detect this case. Hence needing to detect conflicts.
>

OK. Got it, thanks.

>
> > IMHO even in normal scenarios i.e. when we are not doing LD on
> > standby, we should mandate the use of a physical replication slot.
>
> I don't think that's going to fly. There plenty scenarios where you e.g. don't
> want to use a slot, e.g. when you want to limit space use on the primary.
>

I think this can be controlled via max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC, if I
understand it correctly.

--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.