Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>

From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: 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: 2022-12-20T20:35:13Z
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.

Attachments

Hi,

On 12/20/22 7:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 1:19 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> I don't understand what the "may*" or "*Possible" really are
>> about. snapshotConflictHorizon is a conflict with a certain xid - there
>> commonly won't be anything to conflict with. If there's a conflict in
>> the logical-decoding-on-standby case, we won't be able to apply it only
>> sometimes or such.
> 
> The way I was imagining it is that snapshotConflictHorizon tells us
> whether there is a conflict with this record and then, if there is,
> this new Boolean tells us whether it's relevant to logical decoding as
> well.
> 

the "may*" or "*Possible" was, most probably, because I preferred to have the uncertainty of the conflict mentioned in the name.
But, somehow, I was forgetting about the relationship with snapshotConflictHorizon.
So, agree with both of you that mentioning about the uncertainty of the conflict is useless.

>> How about "affectsLogicalDecoding", "conflictsWithSlots" or
>> "isCatalogRel" or such?
> 
> isCatalogRel seems fine to me.

For me too, please find attached v34 using it.

Regards,

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