| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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: | 2023-12-11 08:17:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-s3ZPmoK7dhomnHxzLM92+Eu0+uOsVrwmgFUBZK_-JtJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:36 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 4:53 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > PFA v43, changes are:
> >
>
> I wanted to discuss 0003 patch about cascading standby's. It is not
> clear to me whether we want to allow physical standbys to further wait
> for cascading standby to sync their slots. If we allow such a feature
> one may expect even primary to wait for all the cascading standby's
> because otherwise still logical subscriber can be ahead of one of the
> cascading standby. I feel even if we want to allow such a behaviour we
> can do it later once the main feature is committed. I think it would
> be good to just allow logical walsenders on primary to wait for
> physical standbys represented by GUC 'standby_slot_names'. If we agree
> on that then it would be good to prohibit setting this GUC on standby
> or at least it should be a no-op even if this GUC should be set on
> physical standby.
>
> Thoughts?
IMHO, why not keep the behavior consistent across primary and standby?
I mean if it doesn't require a lot of new code/design addition then
it should be the user's responsibility. I mean if the user has set
'standby_slot_names' on standby then let standby also wait for
cascading standby to sync their slots? Is there any issue with that
behavior?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | jian he | 2023-12-11 08:31:24 | Re: SQL:2011 application time |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2023-12-11 07:52:32 | Re: trying again to get incremental backup |