From: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "vignesh C" <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Michael Paquier" <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Ashutosh Bapat" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Amit Kapila" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Shlok Kyal" <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Date: | 2024-02-14 02:56:43 |
Message-ID: | 2edde173-5ff9-45fd-b881-cd04eb13049f@app.fastmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 8, 2024, at 12:04 AM, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
> >
> Remember the target server was a standby (read only access). I don't expect an
> application trying to modify it; unless it is a buggy application.
> >
>
> What if the client modifies the data just after the promotion?
> Naively considered, all the changes can be accepted, but are there any issues?
If someone modifies data after promotion, fine; she has to deal with conflicts,
if any. IMO it is solved adding one or two sentences in the documentation.
> >
> Regarding
> GUCs, almost all of them is PGC_POSTMASTER (so it cannot be modified unless the
> server is restarted). The ones that are not PGC_POSTMASTER, does not affect the
> pg_createsubscriber execution [1].
> >
>
> IIUC, primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name is PGC_SIGHUP.
Ditto.
> >
> I'm just pointing out that this case is a different from pg_upgrade (from which
> this idea was taken). I'm not saying that's a bad idea. I'm just arguing that
> you might be preventing some access read only access (monitoring) when it is
> perfectly fine to connect to the database and execute queries. As I said
> before, the current UI allows anyone to setup the standby to accept only local
> connections. Of course, it is an extra step but it is possible. However, once
> you apply v16-0007, there is no option but use only local connection during the
> transformation. Is it an acceptable limitation?
> >
>
> My remained concern is written above. If they do not problematic we may not have
> to restrict them for now. At that time, changes
>
> 1) overwriting a port number,
> 2) setting listen_addresses = ''
It can be implemented later if people are excited by it.
> are not needed, right? IIUC inconsistency of -P may be still problematic.
I still think we shouldn't have only the transformed primary_conninfo as
option.
> >
> pglogical_create_subscriber does nothing [2][3].
> >
>
> Oh, thanks.
> Just to confirm - pglogical set shared_preload_libraries to '', should we follow or not?
The in-core logical replication does not require any library to be loaded.
--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrei Lepikhov | 2024-02-14 03:21:41 | Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-02-14 02:55:08 | Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible |