Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >>> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> - probably open corner cases like: what if a standby is down? would that mean
> >>>> that synchronize_slot_names not being send to the primary would allow the decoding
> >>>> on the primary to go ahead?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Good question. BTW, irrespective of whether we have
> >>> 'standby_slot_names' parameters or not, how should we behave if
> >>> standby is down? Say, if 'synchronize_slot_names' is only specified on
> >>> standby then in such a situation primary won't be even aware that some
> >>> of the logical walsenders need to wait.
> >>
> >> Exactly, that's why I was thinking keeping standby_slot_names to address
> >> this scenario. In such a case one could simply decide to keep or remove
> >> the associated physical replication slot from standby_slot_names. Keep would
> >> mean "wait" and removing would mean allow to decode on the primary.
> >>
> >>> OTOH, one can say that users
> >>> should configure 'synchronize_slot_names' on both primary and standby
> >>> but note that this value could be different for different standby's,
> >>> so we can't configure it on primary.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, I think that's a good use case for standby_slot_names, what do you think?
> >>
> >
> > But, even if we keep 'standby_slot_names' for this purpose, the
> > primary doesn't know the value of 'synchronize_slot_names' once the
> > standby is down and or the primary is restarted. So, how will we know
> > which logical WAL senders needs to wait for 'standby_slot_names'?
> >
>
> Yeah right, I also think we'd need:
>
> - synchronize_slot_names on both primary and standby
>
> But now we would need to take care of different standby having different values (
> as you said up-thread)....
>
> Thinking out loud: What about a single GUC on the primary (not standby_slot_names nor
> synchronize_slot_names) but say logical_slots_wait_for_standby that could be a list of say
> "logical_slot_name:physical_slot".
>
> I think this GUC would help us define each walsender behavior (should the standby(s)
> be up or down):
>

It may help in defining the walsender's behaviour better for sure. But
the problem I see once we start defining sync-slot-names on primary
(in any form whether as independent GUC or as above mapping GUC) is
that it needs to be then in sync with standbys, as each standby for
sure needs to maintain its own sync-slot-names GUC to make it aware of
what all it needs to sync. This brings us to the original question of
how do we actually keep these configurations in sync between primary
and standby if we plan to maintain it on both?

> - don't wait if its associated logical_slot is not listed in this GUC
> - or wait based on its associated "list" of mapped physical slots (would probably
> have to deal with the min restart_lsn for all the corresponding mapped ones).
>
> I don't think we can avoid having to define at least one GUC on the primary (at least to
> handle the case of standby(s) being down).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Bertrand Drouvot
> PostgreSQL Contributors Team
> RDS Open Source Databases
> Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com