From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | John H <johnhyvr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allow logical failover slots to wait on synchronous replication |
Date: | 2024-09-16 10:34:16 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KGRGJM9R5WLV-D7WevAkT-DV5qzA7WBP9eU4mPBeBv_Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> > Another question aside from the above point, what if someone has
> > specified logical subscribers in synchronous_standby_names? In the
> > case of synchronized_standby_slots, we won't proceed with such slots.
> >
>
> Yes, it is a possibility. I have missed this point earlier. Now I
> tried a case where I give a mix of logical subscriber and physical
> standby in 'synchronous_standby_names' on pgHead, it even takes that
> 'mix' configuration and starts waiting accordingly.
>
> synchronous_standby_names = 'FIRST 2(logicalsub_1, phy_standby_1,
> phy_standby_2)';
>
This should not happen as we don't support syncing failover slots on
logical subscribers. The other point to consider here is that the user
may not have set 'sync_replication_slots' on all the physical standbys
mentioned in 'synchronous_standby_names' and in that case, it doesn't
make sense to wait for WAL to get flushed on those standbys. What do
you think?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim Jones | 2024-09-16 10:38:15 | Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-09-16 10:32:51 | Re: Add contrib/pg_logicalsnapinspect |