From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabrízio de Royes Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Date: | 2024-07-03 05:57:50 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+EpcRSRuZM5bV=kZahEF1E=8K=YqZ1rS_i5u5VOrJRKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 9:21 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Dear Amit,
>
> > IIUC, the problem is that the consistent_lsn value returned by
> > setup_publisher() is the "end +1" location of the required LSN whereas
> > the recovery_target_lsn used in wait_for_end_recovery() expects the
> > LSN value to be "start" location of required LSN.
>
> Yeah, right. It is same as my understanding.
>
> > This sounds like an ugly hack to me and don't know if we can use it.
>
> I also think it is hacky, but I could not find better solutions.
>
> > The ideal way to fix this is to get the start_lsn from the
> > create_logical_slot functionality or have some parameter like
> > recover_target_end_lsn but I don't know if this is a good time to
> > extend such a functionality.
>
> I felt that such approach might be used for HEAD, but not suitable for PG17.
> Alternative approach I came up with was to insert a tuple while waiting the
> promotion. It can generate a WAL record so that standby can finish after the
> application. But I'm not sure how do we do and it seems to lead an additional
> timing issue. Also, this does not improve the behavior of the command - normal
> user may have to wait some time by the command.
>
BTW, I think the time required by standby to reach a consistent state
after startup is any way unpredictable. For example, if we consider
that in real-world scenarios between the time we have stopped standby
and restarted it, there could be many transactions on primary that
need to be replicated before we reach recover_target_lsn.
I don't think adding additional (dummy) WAL records is a good solution
but it is better to hear from others.
> Do you have any other idea?
>
The other idea could be that we use the minimum restart_lsn of all the
slots created by this tool as a consistent_lsn. We can probably get
that value by using pg_get_replication_slots() but this idea needs
further evaluation as to whether it will lead to a consistent
subscriber.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2024-07-03 05:59:25 | Re: Conflict Detection and Resolution |
Previous Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-07-03 05:43:19 | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |