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

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:24 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:22 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3)
> > > > update_synced_slots_inactive_time():
> > > >
> > > > This assert is removed, is it intentional?
> > > > Assert(s->active_pid == 0);
> > >
> > > Yes, the slot can get acquired in the corner case when someone runs
> > > pg_sync_replication_slots concurrently at this time. I'm referring to
> > > the issue reported upthread. We don't prevent one running
> > > pg_sync_replication_slots in promotion/ShutDownSlotSync phase right?
> > > Maybe we should prevent that otherwise some of the slots are synced
> > > and the standby gets promoted while others are yet-to-be-synced.
> > >
> >
> > We should do something about it but that shouldn't be done in this
> > patch. We can handle it separately and then add such an assert.
>
> Agreed. Once this patch is concluded, I can fix the slot sync shutdown
> issue and will also add this 'assert' back.

Agreed. Thanks.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com