Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Non-reserved replication slots and slot advancing
Date: 2018-07-03 16:55:53
Message-ID: 20180703165553.ycls2dup5gwynynx@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-06-26 16:13:05 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I have been chewing for the last couple of days on this email from
> Horiguchi-san:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180622.163312.254556300.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
>
> As summarized, it is actually strange to be able to advance a slot which
> has a non-reserved restart_lsn. For example, take that which can happen
> on HEAD:
> =# select pg_create_physical_replication_slot('toto');
> pg_create_physical_replication_slot
> -------------------------------------
> (toto,)
> (1 row)
> =# select pg_replication_slot_advance('toto', '0/1');
> pg_replication_slot_advance
> -----------------------------
> (toto,0/1)
> (1 row)
> =# select slot_name, restart_lsn from pg_replication_slots ;
> slot_name | restart_lsn
> -----------+-------------
> toto | 0/1
> (1 row)

I'm not clear to why this is a problem? Seems like either behaviour can
be argued for. I don't really have an opinion either way. I'd just
remove the item from the open items list, I don't think we need to hold
up the release for it?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikhil Sontakke 2018-07-03 17:20:01 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-07-03 16:35:19 Re: Expression errors with "FOR UPDATE" and postgres_fdw with partition wise join enabled.