Horton

Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Date: 2023-11-10T08:15:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 11/10/23 8:55 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 12:50 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But even if we ERROR out instead of emitting a WARNING, the user would still
>> need to be notified/monitor such errors. I agree that then probably they will
>> come to know earlier because the slot sync mechanism would be stopped but still
>> it is not "guaranteed" (specially if there is no others "working" synced slots
>> around.)
> 
>>
>> And if they do not, then there is still a risk to use this slot after a
>> failover thinking this is a "synced" slot.
>>
> 
> I think this is another reason that probably giving ERROR has better
> chances for the user to notice before failover. IF knowing such errors
> user still proceeds with the failover, the onus is on her.

Agree. My concern is more when they don't know about the error.

> We can
> probably document this hazard along with the failover feature so that
> users are aware that they either need to be careful while creating
> slots on standby or consult ERROR logs. I guess we can even make it
> visible in the view also.

Yeah.

>> Giving more thoughts, what about using a dedicated/reserved naming convention for
>> synced slot like synced_<primary_slot_name> or such and then:
>>
>> - prevent user to create sync_<whatever> slots on standby
>> - sync <slot> on primary to sync_<slot> on standby
>> - during failover, rename  sync_<slot> to <slot> and if <slot> exists then
>> emit a WARNING and keep sync_<slot> in place.
>>
>> That way both slots are still in place (the manually created <slot> and
>> the sync_<slot<) and one could decide what to do with them.
>>
> 
> Hmm, I think after failover, users need to rename all slots or we need
> to provide a way to rename them so that they can be used by
> subscribers which sounds like much more work.

Agree that's much more work for the subscriber case. Maybe that's not worth
the extra work.

>>> Also, the current coding doesn't ensure
>>> we will always give WARNING. If we see the below code that deals with
>>> this WARNING,
>>>
>>> +  /* User created slot with the same name exists, emit WARNING. */
>>> +  else if (found && s->data.sync_state == SYNCSLOT_STATE_NONE)
>>> +  {
>>> +    ereport(WARNING,
>>> +        errmsg("not synchronizing slot %s; it is a user created slot",
>>> +             remote_slot->name));
>>> +  }
>>> +  /* Otherwise create the slot first. */
>>> +  else
>>> +  {
>>> +    TransactionId xmin_horizon = InvalidTransactionId;
>>> +    ReplicationSlot *slot;
>>> +
>>> +    ReplicationSlotCreate(remote_slot->name, true, RS_EPHEMERAL,
>>> +                remote_slot->two_phase, false);
>>>
>>> I think this is not a solid check to ensure that the slot existed
>>> before. Because it could be created as soon as the slot sync worker
>>> invokes ReplicationSlotCreate() here.
>>
>> Agree.
>>
> 
> So, having a concrete check to give WARNING would require some more
> logic which I don't think is a good idea to handle this boundary case.
> 

Yeah good point, agree to just error out in all the case then (if we discard
the sync_ reserved wording proposal, which seems to be the case as probably
not worth the extra work).

Regards,

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

Commits

  1. Doc: Add the new section "Logical Replication Failover".

  2. Fix the review comments and a bug in the slot sync code.

  3. Fix a test in failover slots regression test.

  4. Fix the intermittent buildfarm failures in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.

  5. Split XLogCtl->LogwrtResult into separate struct members

  6. Ensure that the sync slots reach a consistent state after promotion without losing data.

  7. Introduce a new GUC 'standby_slot_names'.

  8. Fix BF failure introduced by commit b3f6b14cf4.

  9. Fixups for commit 93db6cbda0.

  10. Fix BF failure in commit 93db6cbda0.

  11. Add a new slot sync worker to synchronize logical slots.

  12. Improve ERROR/LOG messages added by commits ddd5f4f54a and 7a424ece48.

  13. Disable autovacuum on primary in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync test.

  14. Fix the incorrect format specifier used in commit 7a424ece48.

  15. Change the LOG level in 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl to DEBUG2.

  16. Add more LOG and DEBUG messages for slot synchronization.

  17. Another try to fix BF failure introduced in commit ddd5f4f54a.

  18. Fix BF introduced in commit ddd5f4f54a.

  19. Add a slot synchronization function.

  20. Clean-ups for 776621a5e4 and 7329240437.

  21. Enhance libpqrcv APIs to support slot synchronization.

  22. Add a failover option to subscriptions.

  23. Allow setting failover property in the replication command.

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

  25. Add macros for looping through a List without a ListCell.

  26. Track conflict_reason in pg_replication_slots.

  27. Allow upgrades to preserve the full subscription's state.

  28. Add support for incremental backup.

  29. Simplify some logic in CreateReplicationSlot()

  30. Fix uninitialized access to InitialRunningXacts during decoding after ERROR.

  31. Flexible options for CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT.

  32. Empty search_path in logical replication apply worker and walsender.

  33. Fix oldest xmin and LSN computation across repslots after advancing

  34. Require C99 (and thus MSCV 2013 upwards).