From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(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: | 2024-03-14 14:27:46 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACVRS2LZbycpM8rZT8QynR05AtvttOHfFOhczjyqU7zZSA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 9:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> >
> > Yes, there will be some sort of duplicity if we emit conflict_reason
> > as a text field. However, I still think the better way is to turn
> > conflict_reason text to conflict boolean and set it to true only on
> > rows_removed and wal_level_insufficient invalidations. When conflict
> > boolean is true, one (including all the tests that we've added
> > recently) can look for invalidation_reason text field for the reason.
> > This sounds reasonable to me as opposed to we just mentioning in the
> > docs that "if invalidation_reason is rows_removed or
> > wal_level_insufficient it's the reason for conflict with recovery".
> >
> Fair point. I think we can go either way. Bertrand, Nathan, and
> others, do you have an opinion on this matter?
While we wait to hear from others on this, I'm attaching the v9 patch
set implementing the above idea (check 0001 patch). Please have a
look. I'll come back to the other review comments soon.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v9-0001-Track-invalidation_reason-in-pg_replication_slots.patch | application/x-patch | 19.8 KB |
v9-0002-Add-XID-age-based-replication-slot-invalidation.patch | application/x-patch | 12.8 KB |
v9-0003-Track-inactive-replication-slot-information.patch | application/x-patch | 10.0 KB |
v9-0004-Add-inactive_timeout-based-replication-slot-inval.patch | application/x-patch | 11.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-03-14 14:27:54 | Re: [DOCS] HOT - correct claim about indexes not referencing old line pointers |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2024-03-14 14:21:46 | Re: Add publisher and subscriber to glossary documentation. |