Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

Here I made new patch of feature, discussed above.

WAIT FOR procedure - waits for certain lsn on pause
==========
Synopsis
==========
SELECT pg_wait_lsn(‘LSN’, timeout) returns boolean

Where timeout = 0, will wait infinite without timeout
And if timeout = 1, then just check if lsn was replayed

How to use it
==========

Greg Stark wrote:
> That said, I'm not a fan of the specific function names. Remember that
> we have polymorphic functions so you could probably just have an
> option argument:

If you have any example, I will be glade to see them. Ьy searches have
not been fruitful.

Michael Paquier wrote:
> While looking at all the patches proposed, I have noticed that all the
> approaches proposed force a wakeup of the waiters in the redo loop of
> the startup process for each record, before reading the next record.
> It strikes me that there is some interaction with custom resource
> managers here, where it is possible to poke at the waiters not for
> each record, but after reading some specific records. Something
> out-of-core would not be as responsive as the per-record approach,
> still responsive enough that the waiters wait on input for an
> acceptable amount of time, depending on the frequency of the records
> generated by a primary to wake them up. Just something that popped
> into my mind while looking a bit at the threads.

I`ll work on this idea to have less impact on the redo system.

On 2023-03-02 13:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> But I wonder how a client is going to get the LSN. How would all of
> this be used by a client?
As I wrote earlier main purpose of the feature is to achieve
read-your-writes-consistency, while using async replica for reads and
primary for writes. In that case lsn of last modification is stored
inside application.

> I'm tempted to think this could be a protocol-layer facility. Every
> query automatically returns the current LSN, and every query can also
> send along an LSN to wait for, and the client library would just keep
> track of the LSN for (what it thinks of as) the connection. So you
> get some automatic serialization without having to modify your client
> code.
Yes it sounds very tempted. But I think community will be against it.

--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company