| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Date: | 2025-01-02 00:13:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PsbjmavrkA=h6JFZ+-6wc9E0EJy9untYbWKFNCLBQ6QsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Nisha.
My review comments for patch v58-0001.
======
src/backend/replication/slot.c
InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
1.
/*
- * If the slot can be acquired, do so and mark it invalidated
- * immediately. Otherwise we'll signal the owning process, below, and
- * retry.
+ * If the slot can be acquired, do so and mark it as invalidated. If
+ * the slot is already ours, mark it as invalidated. Otherwise, we'll
+ * signal the owning process below and retry.
*/
- if (active_pid == 0)
+ if (active_pid == 0 ||
+ (MyReplicationSlot == s && active_pid == MyProcPid))
{
As you previously explained [1] "This change applies to all types of
invalidation, not just inactive_timeout case [...] It's a general
optimization for the case when the current process is the active PID
for the slot."
In that case, should this be in a separate patch that can be pushed to
master by itself, i.e. independent of anything else in this thread
that is being done for the purpose of implementing the timeout
feature?
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Austalia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2025-01-02 00:23:54 | Re: Incorrect CHUNKHDRSZ in nodeAgg.c |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2025-01-01 23:22:35 | Re: Typos in the code and README |