From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: walreceiver uses a temporary replication slot by default |
Date: | 2020-02-12 05:13:06 |
Message-ID: | 20200212051306.GB1464@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 01:46:04PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I still architecturally don't find it attractive that the active
> configuration between walreceiver and startup process can diverge
> though. Imagine if we e.g. added the ability to receive WAL over
> multiple connections from one host, or from multiple hosts (e.g. to be
> able to get the bulk of the WAL from a cascading node, but also to
> provide syncrep acknowledgements directly to the primary), or to allow
> for logical replication without needing all WAL locally on a standby
> doing decoding. It seems not great if there's potentially diverging
> configuration (hot standby feedback, temporary slots, ... ) between
> those walreceivers, just depending on when they started. Here the model
> e.g. parallel workers use, which explicitly ensure that the GUC state is
> the same in workers and the leader, is considerably better, imo.
Yes, I still think that we should fix that inconsistency, mark the new
GUC wal_receiver_create_temp_slot as PGC_POSTMASTER, and add a note at
the top of RequestXLogStreaming() and walreceiver.c about the
assumptions we'd prefer rely to for the GUCs starting a WAL receiver.
> So I think adding more of these parameters affecting walreceivers
> without coordination is not going quite in the right direction.
Indeed. Adding more comments would be one way to prevent the
situation to happen here, I fear that others may forget this stuff in
the future.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-12 05:19:01 | pgsql: Try to harden insert-conflict-specconflict against autovacuum. |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-02-12 05:10:38 | Re: pgsql: Test additional speculative conflict scenarios. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-12 05:28:19 | Re: client-side fsync() error handling |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-02-12 05:10:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |