From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about StartLogicalReplication() error path |
Date: | 2021-06-11 20:05:10 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZu2N9htRh_TNLAxE5YybvdbG3yJ_GbdLg5SqiO9gFrCw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:49 PM Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> It doesn't add any overhead.
>
> All the client would have to do is "SELECT confirmed_flush_lsn FROM
> pg_replication_slots WHERE slot_name='myslot'", and compare it to the
> stored value. If the stored value is earlier than the
> confirmed_flush_lsn, the *client* can decide to start replication at
> the confirmed_flush_lsn. That makes sense because the client knows more
> about its behavior and configuration, and whether that's a safe choice
> or not.
True, but it doesn't seem very nice to forcethe client depend on SQL
when that wouldn't otherwise be needed. The SQL is a lot more likely
to fail than a replication command, for example due to some
permissions issue. So I think if we want to make this an optional
behavior, it would be better to add a flag to the START_REPLICATION
flag to say whether it's OK for the server to fast-forward like this.
You seem to see this as some kind of major problem and I guess I don't
agree. I think it's pretty clear what the motivation was for the
current behavior, because I believe it's well-explained by the comment
and the three people who have tried to answer your question. I also
think it's pretty clear why somebody might find it surprising: someone
might think that fast-forwarding is harmful and risky rather than a
useful convenience. As evidence for the fact that someone might think
that, I offer the fact that you seem to think exactly that thing. I
also think that there's pretty good evidence that the behavior as it
exists is not really so bad. As far as I know, and I certainly might
have missed something, you're the first one to complain about behavior
that we've had for quite a long time now, and you seem to be saying
that it might cause problems for somebody, not that you know it
actually did. So, I don't know, I'm not opposed to talking about
potential improvements here, but to the extent that you're suggesting
this is unreasonable behavior, I think that's too harsh.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Finnerty, Jim | 2021-06-11 20:05:39 | Re: Character expansion with ICU collations |
Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2021-06-11 19:52:21 | Re: Race condition in InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() |