Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Date
Msg-id 4700d202-a420-e8e0-becd-aac6ac52dce6@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view
List pgsql-hackers

On 2020/06/22 21:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 11:19 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 03:53:54PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 09:45:52AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>> Isn't this information specific to checkpoints, so maybe better to
>>>> display in view pg_stat_bgwriter?
>>>
>>> Not sure that's a good match.  If we decide to expose that, a separate
>>> function returning a LSN based on the segment number from
>>> XLogGetLastRemovedSegno() sounds fine to me, like
>>> pg_wal_last_recycled_lsn().  Perhaps somebody has a better name in
>>> mind?
>>
>> I was thinking on this one for the last couple of days, and came up
>> with the name pg_wal_oldest_lsn(), as per the attached, traking the
>> oldest WAL location still available.

Thanks for the patch!

+        <literal>NULL</literal> if no WAL segments have been removed since
+        startup.

Isn't this confusing? I think that we should store the last removed
WAL segment to somewhere (e.g., pg_control) and restore it at
the startup, so that we can see the actual value even after the startup.
Or we should scan pg_wal directory and find the "minimal" WAL segment
and return its LSN.


> I feel such a function is good to have but I am not sure if there is a
> need to tie it with the removal of min_safe_lsn column.

We should expose the LSN calculated from
"the current WAL LSN - max(wal_keep_segments * 16MB, max_slot_wal_keep_size)"?
This indicates the minimum LSN of WAL files that are guaraneed to be
currently retained by wal_keep_segments and max_slot_wal_keep_size.
That is, if checkpoint occurs when restart_lsn of replication slot is
smaller than that minimum LSN, some required WAL files may be removed.

So DBAs can periodically monitor and compare restart_lsn and that minimum
LSN. If they see frequently that difference of those LSN is very small,
they can decide to increase wal_keep_segments or max_slot_wal_keep_size,
to prevent required WAL files from being removed. Thought?

Regards,


-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Online checksums patch - once again
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions