Horton

Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-02T08:33:40Z
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. Add a test for commit ac0e33136a using the injection point.

  2. Invalidate inactive replication slots.

  3. Fix incorrect slot type in BuildTupleHashTableExt

  4. Allow synced slots to have their inactive_since.

  5. Change last_inactive_time to inactive_since in pg_replication_slots.

  6. Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.

  7. Track invalidation_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  8. Add option force_initdb to PostgreSQL::Test::Cluster:init()

  9. Add a failover option to subscriptions.

  10. Allow setting failover property in the replication command.

  11. Allow to enable failover property for replication slots via SQL API.

  12. Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  13. Log messages for replication slot acquisition and release.

  14. Remove vacuum_defer_cleanup_age

  15. Fix corruption due to vacuum_defer_cleanup_age underflowing 64bit xids

  16. meson: Add initial version of meson based build system

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 12:41:35PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 11:58 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Or a simple solution is that the slotsync worker updates
> > > inactive_since as it does for non-synced slots, and disables
> > > timeout-based slot invalidation for synced slots.
> >
> > Yeah, I think the main question to help us decide is: do we want to invalidate
> > "inactive" synced slots locally (in addition to synchronizing the invalidation
> > from the primary)?
> 
> I think this approach looks way simpler than the other one. The other
> approach of linking inactive_since on the standby for synced slots to
> the actual LSNs (or other slot parameters) being updated or not looks
> more complicated, and might not go well with the end user.  However,
> we need to be able to say why we don't invalidate synced slots due to
> inactive timeout unlike the wal_removed invalidation that can happen
> right now on the standby for synced slots. This leads us to define
> actually what a slot being active means. Is syncing the data from the
> remote slot considered as the slot being active?
> 
> On the other hand, it may not sound great if we don't invalidate
> synced slots due to inactive timeout even though they hold resources
> such as WAL and XIDs.

Right and the "only" benefit then would be to give an idea as to when the last
sync did occur on the local slot.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com