Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(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>, 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: 2024-04-05 03:52:19
Message-ID: Zg91c+sQFf8xuMZ9@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 05:31:45PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 2:59 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Prior to commit 2ec005b, this check was okay, as we did not expect
> > restart_lsn of the synced slot to be ahead of remote since we were
> > directly copying the lsns. But now when we use 'advance' to do logical
> > decoding on standby, there is a possibility that restart lsn of the
> > synced slot is ahead of remote slot, if there are running txns records
> > found after reaching consistent-point while consuming WALs from
> > restart_lsn till confirmed_lsn. In such a case, slot-sync's advance
> > may end up serializing snapshots and setting restart_lsn to the
> > serialized snapshot point, ahead of remote one.
> >
> > Fix:
> > The sanity check needs to be corrected. Attached a patch to address the issue.
>

Thanks for reporting, explaining the issue and providing a patch.

Regarding the patch:

1 ===

+ * Attempt to sync lsns and xmins only if remote slot is ahead of local

s/lsns/LSNs/?

2 ===

+ if (slot->data.confirmed_flush != remote_slot->confirmed_lsn)
+ elog(LOG,
+ "could not synchronize local slot \"%s\" LSN(%X/%X)"
+ " to remote slot's LSN(%X/%X) ",
+ remote_slot->name,
+ LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(slot->data.confirmed_flush),
+ LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn));

I don't think that the message is correct here. Unless I am missing something
there is nothing in the following code path that would prevent the slot to be
sync during this cycle.

Regards,

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Wienhold 2024-04-05 04:10:14 Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-04-05 03:37:48 Re: IPC::Run::time[r|out] vs our TAP tests