Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

From: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Date: 2023-12-11 11:43:37
Message-ID: CAJpy0uC-8mrn6jakcFjSVmbJiHZs-Okq8YKxGfrMLPD-2=wOqQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 1:22 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 12/8/23 10:06 AM, Amit Kapila 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've the same feeling here. I think it would probably be expected that
> the primary also wait for all 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.
>
> Agree.
>
> > I think it would
> > be good to just allow logical walsenders on primary to wait for
> > physical standbys represented by GUC 'standby_slot_names'.
>
> That makes sense for me for v1.
>
> > 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.
>
> I'd prefer to completely prohibit it on standby (to make it very clear it's not
> working at all) as long as one can enable it without downtime once the standby
> is promoted (which is the case currently).

And I think slot-sync worker should exit as well on cascading standby. Thoughts?

If we agree on the above, then we need to look for a way to
distinguish between first and cascading standby. I could not find any
existing way to do so. One possible approach is to connect to the
remote using PrimaryConninfo and run 'pg_is_in_recovery()' there, if
it returns true, then it means we are cascading standby. Any simpler
way to achieve this?

thanks
Shveta

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amul Sul 2023-12-11 12:22:26 Re: ALTER COLUMN ... SET EXPRESSION to alter stored generated column's expression
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2023-12-11 11:17:50 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby