Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 7:40 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 5:05 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 16, 2024 at 4:26 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > In general, it seems this patch has been stuck for a long time on the
> > > decision to choose an appropriate UI (syntax), and we thought of
> > > moving it further so that the other parts of the patch can be
> > > reviewed/discussed. So, I feel before pushing this we should see
> > > comments from a few (at least two) other senior members who earlier
> > > shared their opinion on the syntax. I know we don't have much time
> > > left but OTOH pushing such a change (where we didn't have a consensus
> > > on syntax) without much discussion at this point of time could lead to
> > > discussions after commit.
> >
> > +1 to gain consensus first on the syntax changes. With this, we might
> > be violating the SQL standard for explicit txn commands (I stand for
> > correction about the SQL standard though).
>
> Thank you for your feedback. Generally, I agree it's correct to get
> consensus on syntax first. And yes, this patch has been here since
> 2016. We didn't get consensus for syntax for 8 years. Frankly
> speaking, I don't see a reason why this shouldn't take another 8
> years. At the same time the ability to wait on standby given LSN is
> replayed seems like pretty basic and simple functionality. Thus, it's
> quite frustrating it already took that long and still unclear when/how
> this could be finished.
>
> My current attempt was to commit minimal implementation as less
> invasive as possible. A new clause for BEGIN doesn't require
> additional keywords and doesn't introduce additional statements. But
> yes, this is still a new qual. And, yes, Amit you're right that even
> if I had committed that, there was still a high risk of further
> debates and revert.
>
> Given my specsis about agreement over syntax, I'd like to check
> another time if we could go without new syntax at all. There was an
> attempt to implement waiting for lsn as a function. But function
> holds a snapshot, which could prevent WAL records from being replayed.
> Releasing a snapshot could break the parent query. But now we have
> procedures, which need a dedicated statement for the call and can even
> control transactions. Could we implement a waitlsn in a procedure
> that:
>
> 1. First, check that it was called with non-atomic context (that is,
> it's not called within a transaction). Trigger error if called with
> atomic context.
> 2. Release a snapshot to be able to wait without risk of WAL replay
> stuck. Procedure is still called within the snapshot. It's a bit of
> a hack to release a snapshot, but Vacuum statements already do so.
>

Can you please provide a bit more details with some example what is
the existing problem with functions and how using procedures will
resolve it? How will this this address the implicit transaction case
or do we have any other workaround for those cases?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.