| 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>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Date: | 2024-01-15 10:39:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1Jdt2KMOAaVmLf_k5imWDOWCXNS8R82DqGU5c5OX6vGSg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 2:54 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 10:05:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 12:07 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Maybe the "best" approach would be to have a way to detect that a slot has been
> > > re-created on the primary (but that would mean rely on more than the slot name
> > > to "identify" a slot and probably add a new member to the struct to do so).
> > >
> >
> > Right, I also thought so but not sure further complicating the slot
> > machinery is worth detecting this case explicitly. If we see any
> > problem with the idea discussed then we may need to think something
> > along those lines.
>
> Yeah, let's see. On one side that would require extra work but on the other side
> that would also probably simplify (and less bug prone in the mid-long term?)
> other parts of the code.
>
After following Sawada-San's suggestion to not copy the 'failover'
option there doesn't seem to be much special handling, so there is
probably less to simplify.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2024-01-15 10:54:07 | Re: Make NUM_XLOGINSERT_LOCKS configurable |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-01-15 10:37:15 | Re: automating RangeTblEntry node support |