Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

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 02:46:20
Message-ID: CAHut+Ptp+8qFFhXcZ6-ejT5hS31WEOg_rbPtJxbA0MdkqgxgAg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Nisha,

Here are some minor review comments for patch v58-0002.

======
src/backend/replication/slot.c

check_replication_slot_inactive_timeout:

1.
+
+/*
+ * GUC check_hook for idle_replication_slot_timeout
+ *
+ * We don't allow the value of idle_replication_slot_timeout other
+ * than 0 during the binary upgrade.
+ * See start_postmaster() in pg_upgrade for more details.
+ */

If you want to express it this way, then it seems there are some
wrong/missing words:

SUGGESTION #1.
We don't allow any value of idle_replication_slot_timeout other than 0
during a binary upgrade.

SUGGESTION #2.
We don't allow the value of idle_replication_slot_timeout to be other
than 0 during a binary upgrade.

~

(But, I prefer more terse comments which are not negative-sounding. YMMV).

SUGGESTION #3 (nearly identical text to the actual error message)
The value of idle_replication_slot_timeout must be set to 0 during a
binary upgrade.

======
src/test/recovery/README

2.
+If you want to test idle_replication_slot_timeout, add
+PG_TEST_EXTRA=idle_replication_slot_timeout
+to the "make" command. The test takes over 2 minutes, so not done
+by default.
+

Maybe it's better to use consistent wording with the other tests like
this one already in the README:

/The test/This test/

/so not done by default./so it's not done by default./

======
.../t/043_invalidate_inactive_slots.pl

3.
+# Copyright (c) 2024, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
+

Happy New Year.

/2024/2025/

~~~

4.
+
+# The test takes over two minutes to complete. Run it only if
+# idle_replication_slot_timeout is specified in PG_TEST_EXTRA.
+if ( !$ENV{PG_TEST_EXTRA}
+ || $ENV{PG_TEST_EXTRA} !~ /\bidle_replication_slot_timeout\b/)
+{
+ plan skip_all =>
+ 'A time consuming test, idle_replication_slot_timeout is not
enabled in PG_TEST_EXTRA';
+}

4a.
I noticed the other skipping TAP tests like this have a simpler
message without giving a reason, so maybe it's better to be consistent
with those:

SUGGESTION:
plan skip_all => "test idle_replication_slot_timeout not enabled in
PG_TEST_EXTRA";

~

4b.
Should the check be done right at the top of the file (e.g. even
before the "# Testcase start" comment)?

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2025-01-02 04:26:34 Re: Windows UTF8 system locale
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-01-02 02:45:57 Re: System views for versions reporting