From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4 |
Date: | 2024-11-13 11:55:01 |
Message-ID: | 7c41cd48-901e-49b7-851e-e7bdbcf84f4b@vondra.me |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/13/24 05:38, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> ...
>
> Here's way we can fix SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts() similar to
> DecodeCommit(). DecodeCommit() uses SnapBuildXactNeedsSkip() to decide
> whether a given transaction should be decoded or not.
> /*
> * Should the contents of transaction ending at 'ptr' be decoded?
> */
> bool
> SnapBuildXactNeedsSkip(SnapBuild *builder, XLogRecPtr ptr)
> {
> return ptr < builder->start_decoding_at;
> }
>
> Similar to SnapBuild::start_decoding_at we could maintain a field
> SnapBuild::start_reading_at to the LSN from which the WAL sender would
> start reading WAL. If candidate_restart_lsn produced by a running
> transactions WAL record is less than SnapBuild::start_reading_at,
> SnapBuildProcessRunningXacts() won't call
> LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot() with that candiate LSN. We
> won't access the slot here and the solution will be inline with
> DecodeCommit() which skips the transactions.
>
Could you maybe write a patch doing this? That would allow proper
testing etc.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Vanns | 2024-11-13 12:08:40 | BitmapOr node not used in plan for ANY/IN but is for sequence of ORs ... |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-11-13 11:53:34 | Re: logical replication: restart_lsn can go backwards (and more), seems broken since 9.4 |