From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: Logical decoding slots can go backwards when used from SQL, docs are wrong |
Date: | 2016-03-11 12:15:20 |
Message-ID: | 20160311121520.GA111294@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I think I found a couple of logical decoding issues while writing tests for
> failover slots.
>
> Despite the docs' claim that a logical slot will replay data "exactly
> once", a slot's confirmed_lsn can go backwards and the SQL functions can
> replay the same data more than once.We don't mark a slot as dirty if only
> its confirmed_lsn is advanced, so it isn't flushed to disk. For failover
> slots this means it also doesn't get replicated via WAL. After a master
> crash, or for failover slots after a promote event, the confirmed_lsn will
> go backwards. Users of the SQL interface must keep track of the safely
> locally flushed slot position themselves and throw the repeated data away.
> Unlike with the walsender protocol it has no way to ask the server to skip
> that data.
>
> Worse, because we don't dirty the slot even a *clean shutdown* causes slot
> confirmed_lsn to go backwards. That's a bug IMO. We should force a flush of
> all slots at the shutdown checkpoint, whether dirty or not, to address it.
Why don't we mark the slot dirty when confirmed_lsn advances? If we fix
that, doesn't it fix the other problems too?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-11 12:15:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Re: [HACKERS] Windows service is not starting so there’s message in log: FATAL: "could not create shared memory segment “Global/PostgreSQL.851401618”: Permission denied” |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-03-11 11:53:29 | Re: WIP: Detecting SSI conflicts before reporting constraint violations |