Horton

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

shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>

View thread
From: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-09-01T03:30:37Z
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. Enhance slot synchronization API to respect promotion signal.

  2. Fix inconsistent elevel in pg_sync_replication_slots() retry logic.

  3. Refactor slot synchronization logic in slotsync.c.

  4. Fix intermittent BF failure in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.

  5. Add retry logic to pg_sync_replication_slots().

  6. Fix LOCK_TIMEOUT handling in slotsync worker.

  7. Add slotsync skip statistics.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 4:14 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:37 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1276,7 +1331,7 @@ wait_for_slot_activity(bool some_slot_updated)
> > >
> > > The function is too cute to be useful. The code should be part of
> > > ReplSlotSyncWorkerMain() just like other worker's main functions.
> > >
> >
> > I was thinking we can retain wait_for_slot_activity() as this can even
> > be invoked from API flow. See my comment# 2 in [1]
>
> We want the SQL callable function to finish as fast as possible, and
> make all the slots sync ready as fast as possible. So a shorter nap
> time makes sense. We don't want to increase it per iteration. But sync
> worker is a long running worker and can afford to wait longer. In fact
> it should wait longer so as not to load the primary and the standby.
> Given that the naptimes in both cases can not be controlled by the
> same logic, I think it's better not to use the same function.

Okay, makes sense.

thanks
Shveta