From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
Date: | 2021-12-15 04:10:02 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J2-R5vZ9SEZAu2yXKv-g2KDYZuM6MyjQX8xmiFt75+eQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 2:35 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2021 at 3:23 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > While the worker is skipping one of the skip transactions specified by
> > > the user and immediately if the user specifies another skip
> > > transaction while the skipping of the transaction is in progress this
> > > new value will be reset by the worker while clearing the skip xid. I
> > > felt once the worker has identified the skip xid and is about to skip
> > > the xid, the worker can acquire a lock to prevent concurrency issues:
> >
> > That's a good point.
> > If only the last_error_xid could be skipped, then this wouldn't be an
> > issue, right?
> > If a different xid to skip is specified while the worker is currently
> > skipping a transaction, should that even be allowed?
> >
>
> We don't expect such usage but yes, it could happen and seems not
> good. I thought we can acquire Share lock on pg_subscription during
> the skip but not sure it's a good idea. It would be better if we can
> find a way to allow users to specify only XID that has failed.
>
Yeah, but as we don't have a definite way to allow specifying only
failed XID, I think it is better to use share lock on that particular
subscription. We are already using it for add/update rel state (see,
AddSubscriptionRelState, UpdateSubscriptionRelState), so this will be
another place to use a similar technique.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-12-15 04:12:18 | Re: more descriptive message for process termination due to max_slot_wal_keep_size |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-12-15 04:03:30 | Re: WIN32 pg_import_system_collations |