| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Date: | 2024-03-28 11:35:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J_PwsLduv9gfJn171ftOOgryRpLqSb7YGHKUKDZ_kZ2A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:34 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:38:19AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
>
> > To fix this, we could use the fast forward logical decoding to advance the synced
> > slot's lsn/xmin when syncing these values instead of directly updating the
> > slot's info. This way, the snapshot will be serialized to disk when decoding.
> > If we could not reach to the consistent point at the remote restart_lsn, the
> > slot is marked as temp and will be persisted once it reaches the consistent
> > point. I am still analyzing the fix and will share once ready.
>
> Thanks! I'm wondering about the performance impact (even in fast_forward mode),
> might be worth to keep an eye on it.
>
True, we can consider performance but correctness should be a
priority, and can we think of a better way to fix this issue?
> Should we create a 17 open item [1]?
>
> [1]: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_17_Open_Items
>
Yes, we can do that.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-28 11:57:24 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-03-28 11:32:41 | Re: Vectored I/O in bulk_write.c |