From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
Cc: | Shlok Kyal <shlok(dot)kyal(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: speed up a logical replica setup |
Date: | 2024-01-11 06:41:03 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JRgnhv_ySzuFjN7UaX9qxz5Hqcwew7Fk=+AbJbu0Kd9w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 7:59 AM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024, at 1:33 AM, Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Here the standby node would be waiting for the 'consistent_lsn' wal
> during recovery but this wal will not be present on standby if no
> physical replication is setup. Hence the command will be waiting
> infinitely for the wal.
>
>
> Hmm. Some validations are missing.
>
> To solve this added a timeout of 60s for the recovery process and also
> added a check so that pg_subscriber would give a error when it called
> for node which is not in physical replication.
> Have attached the patch for the same. It is a top-up patch of the
> patch shared by Euler at [1].
>
>
> If the user has a node that is not a standby and it does not set the GUCs to
> start the recovery process from a backup, the initial setup is broken. (That's
> the case you described.) A good UI is to detect this scenario earlier.
> Unfortunately, there isn't a reliable and cheap way to do it. You need to start
> the recovery and check if it is having some progress. (I don't have a strong
> opinion about requiring a standby to use this tool. It would reduce the
> complexity about checking if the setup has all requirements to run this tool.)
>
Right, such a check will reduce some complexity. So, +1 for the check
as proposed by Shlok. Also, what are your thoughts on a timeout during
the wait? I think it is okay to wait for 60s by default but there
should be an option for users to wait for longer.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Umair Shahid | 2024-01-11 06:54:21 | Re: Update docs for default value of fdw_tuple_cost |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-01-11 06:04:42 | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |