Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Subject | Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAExHW5u9iH=reUbKFbHvMvhCZ63s+1-YZfFbATdEEHqt+Dd2uw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:26 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 9:38 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > One thing related to this which needs a discussion is after this > > change, it is possible that part of the transaction contains > > additional logical_wal_info. I couldn't think of a problem due to this > > but users using pg_waldump or other WAL reading utilities could > > question this. One possibility is that we always start including > > logical_wal_info for the next new transaction but not sure if that is > > required. It would be good if other people involved in the discussion > > or otherwise could share their opinion on this point. > > > > AFAIR, logical info is a separate section in a WAL record, and there > is not marker which says "WAL will contain logical info henceforth". > So the utilities should be checking for the existence of such info > before reading it. So I guess it should be ok. Some extra sensitive > utilities may expect that once a WAL record has logical info, all the > succeeding WAL records will have it. They may find it troublesome that > WAL records with and without logical info are interleaved. Generally, > I would prefer that presence/absence of logical info changes at > transaction boundaries, but we will still have interleaving WAL > records. So I doubt how much that matters. > > Sorry for jumping late in the discussion. I have a few comments, > mostly superficial ones. I am yet to take a deeper look at the > synchronization logic. I started looking at the synchronization logic but stumbled at @@ -5100,6 +5139,7 @@ BootStrapXLOG(uint32 data_checksum_version) checkPoint.ThisTimeLineID = BootstrapTimeLineID; checkPoint.PrevTimeLineID = BootstrapTimeLineID; checkPoint.fullPageWrites = fullPageWrites; + checkPoint.logicalDecodingEnabled = IsLogicalDecodingEnabled(); At the time of bootstrapping, logical decoding is solely dependent on the boot_val of wal_level as there will not be any logical slots. Above code however does not make this clear. If we were to change the boot value of wal_level to logical this leads to a misleading CHECKPOINT_SHUTDOWN record being added at the time of bootstrap like below. rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 122/ 122, tx: 0, lsn: 0/01000028, prev 0/00000000, desc: CHECKPOINT_SHUTDOWN redo 0/01000028; tli 1; prev tli 1; fpw true; wal_level logical; logical decoding false; xid 0:3; oid 10000; multi 1; offset 0; oldest xid 3 in DB 1; oldest multi 1 in DB 1; oldest/newest commit timestamp xid: 0/0; oldest running xid 0; shutdown This soon gets corrected by the following WAL record rmgr: XLOG len (rec/tot): 27/ 27, tx: 0, lsn: 0/010000A8, prev 0/01000028, desc: LOGICAL_DECODING_STATUS_CHANGE true So beyond misleading a code reader or someone who is reading the WAL, this does not have any functional impact. But maybe we should consider making this a bit more clear by setting checkPoint.logicalDecodingEnabled based on wal_level in BootStrapXLOG(). Whether we change the code or not, I think we should add a comment to explain this code. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
pgsql-hackers by date: