Hi,
On 2023-01-18 11:24:19 +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
> On 1/6/23 4:40 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hm, that's quite expensive. Perhaps worth adding a C helper that can do that
> > for us instead? This will likely also be needed in real applications after all.
> >
>
> Not sure I got it. What the C helper would be supposed to do?
Call LogStandbySnapshot().
> With a reload in place in my testing, now I notice that the catalog_xmin
> is updated on the primary physical slot after logical slots invalidation
> when reloading hot_standby_feedback from "off" to "on".
>
> This is not the case after a re-start (aka catalog_xmin is NULL).
>
> I think a re-start and reload should produce identical behavior on
> the primary physical slot. If so, I'm tempted to think that the catalog_xmin
> should be updated in case of a re-start too (even if all the logical slots are invalidated)
> because the slots are not dropped yet. What do you think?
I can't quite follow the steps leading up to the difference. Could you list
them in a bit more detail?
> > Can we do something cheaper than rewriting the entire database? Seems
> > rewriting a single table ought to be sufficient?
> >
>
> While implementing the test at the table level I discovered that It looks like there is no guarantee that say a
"vacuumfull pg_class;" would
> produce a conflict.
I assume that's mostly when there weren't any removal
> Indeed, from what I can see in my testing it could generate a XLOG_HEAP2_PRUNE with snapshotConflictHorizon to 0:
>
> "rmgr: Heap2 len (rec/tot): 107/ 107, tx: 848, lsn: 0/03B98B30, prev 0/03B98AF0, desc: PRUNE
snapshotConflictHorizon0"
>
>
> Having a snapshotConflictHorizon to zero leads to ResolveRecoveryConflictWithSnapshot() simply returning
> without any conflict handling.
That doesn't have to mean anything bad. Some row versions can be removed without
creating a conflict. See HeapTupleHeaderAdvanceConflictHorizon(), specifically
* Ignore tuples inserted by an aborted transaction or if the tuple was
* updated/deleted by the inserting transaction.
> It does look like that in the standby decoding case that's not the right behavior (and that the xid that generated
thePRUNING should be used instead)
> , what do you think?
That'd not work, because that'll be typically newer than the catalog_xmin. So
we'd start invalidating things left and right, despite not needing to.
Did you see anything else around this making you suspicious?
> > > +##################################################
> > > +# Test standby promotion and logical decoding behavior
> > > +# after the standby gets promoted.
> > > +##################################################
> > > +
> >
> > I think this also should test the streaming / walsender case.
> >
>
> Do you mean cascading standby?
I mean a logical walsender that starts on a standby and continues across
promotion of the standby.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
