Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Drouvot, Bertrand |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Date | |
Msg-id | 2742485f-4118-4fb4-9f94-8150de9e7d7e@gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 10/13/23 10:35 AM, shveta malik wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 9:18 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > PFA v24 patch set which has below changes: > > 1) 'enable_failover' displayed in pg_replication_slots. > 2) Support for 'enable_failover' in > pg_create_logical_replication_slot(). It is an optional argument with > default value false. > 3) Addressed pending comments (1-30) from Peter in [1]. > 4) Fixed an issue in patch002 due to which even slots with > enable_failover=false were getting synced. > > The changes for 1 and 2 are in patch001 while 3 and 4 are in patch0002 > > Thanks Ajin, for working on 1 and 3. Thanks for the hard work! + if (RecoveryInProgress()) + wrconn = slotsync_remote_connect(NULL); does produce at compilation time: launcher.c:1916:40: warning: too many arguments in call to 'slotsync_remote_connect' wrconn = slotsync_remote_connect(NULL); Looking at 0001: commit message: "is added at the slot level which will be persistent information" what about "which is persistent information" ? Code: + True if this logical slot is enabled to be synced to the physical standbys + so that logical replication is not blocked after failover. Always false + for physical slots. Not sure "not blocked" is the right wording. "can be resumed from the new primary" maybe? +static void +ProcessRepliesAndTimeOut(void) +{ + CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(); + + /* Process any requests or signals received recently */ + if (ConfigReloadPending) + { + ConfigReloadPending = false; + ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP); + SyncRepInitConfig(); + SlotSyncInitConfig(); + } Do we want to do this at each place ProcessRepliesAndTimeOut() is being called? I mean before this change it was not done in ProcessPendingWrites(). + * Wait for physical standby to confirm receiving give lsn. typo? s/give/given/ diff --git a/src/test/recovery/t/050_verify_slot_order.pl b/src/test/recovery/t/050_verify_slot_order.pl new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..25b3d5aac2 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/test/recovery/t/050_verify_slot_order.pl @@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ + +# Copyright (c) 2023, PostgreSQL Global Development Group + Regarding the TAP tests, should we also add some testing related to enable_failover being set in pg_create_logical_replication_slot() and pg_logical_slot_get_changes() behavior too? Please note that current comments are coming while "quickly" going through 0001. I'm planning to have a closer look at 0001 and 0002 too. Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
pgsql-hackers by date: