From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(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>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Date: | 2024-02-05 02:16:54 |
Message-ID: | OS0PR01MB5716AEBA57F69EC4263682B994472@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, February 2, 2024 2:56 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:29 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Agreed, and I am fine with merging 0001, 0002, and 0004 as suggested
> > > by you though I have a few minor comments on 0002 and 0004. I was
> > > thinking about what will be a logical way to split the slot sync
> > > worker patch (combined result of 0001, 0002, and 0004), and one idea
> > > occurred to me is that we can have the first patch as
> > > synchronize_solts() API and the functionality required to implement
> > > that API then the second patch would be a slot sync worker which
> > > uses that API to synchronize slots and does all the required validations.
> > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > If we shift 'synchronize_slots()' to the first patch but there is no
> > caller of it, we may have a compiler warning for the same. The only
> > way it can be done is if we temporarily add SQL function on standby
> > which uses 'synchronize_slots()'. This SQL function can then be
> > removed in later patches where we actually have a caller for
> > 'synchronize_slots'.
> >
>
> Can such a SQL function say pg_synchronize_slots() which can sync all slots that
> have a failover flag set be useful in general apart from just writing tests for this
> new API? I am thinking maybe users want more control over when to sync the
> slots and write their bgworker or simply do it just before shutdown once (sort
> of planned switchover) or at some other pre-defined times. BTW, we also have
> pg_log_standby_snapshot() which otherwise would be done periodically by
> background processes.
Here is an attempt for this. The slotsync worker patch is now splitted into
two patches(0002 and 0003). I also adjusted the doc, comments and tests for the
new pg_synchronize_slots() function.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v77-0005-Document-the-steps-to-check-if-the-standby-is-re.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.6 KB |
v77-0001-libpqrcv-changes-to-support-slot-synchronization.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.8 KB |
v77-0002-Add-a-slot-synchronization-function.patch | application/octet-stream | 63.7 KB |
v77-0003-Add-a-new-slotsync-worker.patch | application/octet-stream | 48.2 KB |
v77-0004-Allow-logical-walsenders-to-wait-for-the-physica.patch | application/octet-stream | 40.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | torikoshia | 2024-02-05 02:28:59 | Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row |
Previous Message | Richard Guo | 2024-02-05 01:42:01 | Re: An improvement on parallel DISTINCT |