Thread

  1. Re: [PATCH] Release replication slot on error in SQL-callable slot functions

    shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> — 2026-05-27T03:53:54Z

    On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 1:41 PM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
    <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > Hi,
    >
    > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 10:50 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:06 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 12:31 AM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
    >> > <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > > Hi,
    >> > >
    >> > > On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 2:58 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 12:42 PM SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM
    >> > >> <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > Hi
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 2:16 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >> >> Thanks for reporting the issue. I could reproduce the same issue with
    >> > >> >> all these as well:
    >> > >> >>
    >> > >> >> pg_logical_slot_peek_changes
    >> > >> >> pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes
    >> > >> >> pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> >
    >> > >> > Please find the attached v2 patch that addressed these three cases as well.
    >> > >> >
    >> > >>
    >> > >> Thank You for addressuing these cases. A few comments:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> 1)
    >> > >>
    >> > >> +-- Test 2: session remains usable after the error (MyReplicationSlot cleared)
    >> > >>
    >> > >> It shoudl be part of 'Test 1' itself and thus should not be named as 'Test 2'
    >> > >>
    >> > >> 2)
    >> > >> --------
    >> > >> +-- Test 4: copy_replication_slot with max_replication_slots exceeded.
    >> > >> +-- We reduce max_replication_slots artificially by filling all remaining slots.
    >> > >> +-- Instead, trigger an error by copying to an already-existing name.
    >> > >> +DO $$
    >> > >> +BEGIN
    >> > >> +    PERFORM pg_copy_logical_replication_slot('regression_slot_t3',
    >> > >> 'regression_slot_t3');
    >> > >> +EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN
    >> > >> +    RAISE NOTICE 'caught: %', SQLERRM;
    >> > >> +END;
    >> > >> +$$;
    >> > >> +-- The original slot must still exist and be usable
    >> > >> +SELECT count(*) = 1 AS orig_slot_ok FROM pg_replication_slots
    >> > >> +    WHERE slot_name = 'regression_slot_t3';
    >> > >> -----------
    >> > >>
    >> > >> I don't think we can hit the Assert with above test (at-least I could
    >> > >> not). Since creation of slot itself will fail as the slot with
    >> > >> same-name already exists, MyReplicationSlot will never be set and thus
    >> > >> Assert will not be hit.  A better testcase will be below which fails
    >> > >> during LoadOutputPlugin() after slot-creation and MyReplicationSlot is
    >> > >> set already.
    >> > >>
    >> > >> SELECT pg_create_logical_replication_slot('src_slot', 'test_decoding');
    >> > >>
    >> > >> DO $$
    >> > >> BEGIN
    >> > >> PERFORM pg_copy_logical_replication_slot('src_slot', 'dst_slot',
    >> > >> false, 'nonexistent_plugin');
    >> > >> EXCEPTION WHEN others THEN
    >> > >> RAISE NOTICE 'caught: %', SQLERRM;
    >> > >> END $$;
    >> > >>
    >> > >> SELECT count(*) FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('src_slot', NULL, NULL);
    >> > >>
    >> > >> 3)
    >> > >> So overall these are the problematic APIs:
    >> > >>
    >> > >> pg_create_logical_replication_slot
    >> > >> pg_replication_slot_advance
    >> > >> pg_copy_logical_replication_slot
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_peek_changes
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_get_changes
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes
    >> > >>
    >> > >> First 3 are are mutually exclusive fixes fow which we have added
    >> > >> testcases. Last 4 are addressed by fixing common function
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts(). I think we should add a test case
    >> > >> for at-least any one of these APIs to cover
    >> > >> pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts().
    >> > >
    >> > >
    >> > > Thanks for reviewing. Please review the attached v3 patch.
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > A few trivial things:
    >> >
    >> > 1)
    >> > pg_replication_slot_advance:
    >> > + PG_TRY();
    >> > + {
    >> > + /* Acquire the slot so we "own" it */
    >> > + ReplicationSlotAcquire(NameStr(*slotname), true, true);
    >> > + /* A slot whose restart_lsn has never been reserved cannot be advanced */
    >> > + if (!XLogRecPtrIsValid(MyReplicationSlot->data.restart_lsn))
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > We can have a blank line after ReplicationSlotAcquire for better readability.
    >> >
    >> > 2)
    >> >
    >> > +SELECT 'init' FROM
    >> > pg_create_logical_replication_slot('regression_slot_t3',
    >> > 'test_decoding', true);
    >> > +SELECT count(*) = 1 AS slot_exists FROM pg_replication_slots
    >> > +    WHERE slot_name = 'regression_slot_t3';
    >> >
    >> > The intent is not clear why are we checking existence of
    >> > regression_slot_t3? I think we can skip it (or else add a comment if
    >> > really needed). The success of previous
    >> > pg_create_logical_replication_slot is enough to confirm that session
    >> > is healthy to run other slot related queries.
    >> >
    >> > 3)
    >> > +SELECT pg_drop_replication_slot('regression_slot_phy');
    >> > +
    >> > +-- cleanup
    >> > +SELECT pg_drop_replication_slot('regression_slot_t3');
    >> >
    >> > We can move drop of 'regression_slot_phy' too under '-- cleanup'
    >> >
    >> > ~~
    >> >
    >> > I have no further comments other than the trivial things mentioned above.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Missed to inform this earlier, I am not able to apply any version of
    >> the patches shared so far with 'git am'. It gives error, 'patch -p1'
    >> works.
    >>
    >> git am v3-0001-Release-replication-slot-on-error-in-slot-SQL-functions.patch
    >> Patch format detection failed.
    >
    > Thanks , Shveta! Please find the attached v4 patch that addressed your comments.
    >
    
    Thank You for the patch.
    I noticed that we are creating regression_slot_t3 as a a temporary
    slot, is that intentional? I think creating a permanent slot here will
    be a better testcase.
    
    I have made a few cosmetic changes for better readability along with
    creating the 'permanent' regression_slot_t3 slot. Please incorporate
    what you think is okay. I have no more comments.
    
    thanks
    Shveta