Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZd-JqNL1-R3RJ0jQRD+-dc94X0nPJgh+dwdDF0rFuE3g@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 5:07 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > I think that, in order to have > > any chance of being acceptable, this would need to be restructured so > > that it pulls data from an existing relcache entry that is known to be > > valid, without attempting to create a new one. That is, > > get_rel_logical_decoding() would need to take a Relation argument, not > > an OID. > > Hm? Once we have a relation we don't really need the helper function anymore. Well, that's fine, too. > > I also think it's super-weird that the value being logged is computed > > using RelationIsAccessibleInLogicalDecoding(). That means that if > > wal_level < logical, we'll set onCatalogTable = false in the xlog > > record, regardless of whether that's true or not. Now I suppose it > > won't matter, because presumably this field is only going to be > > consulted for whatever purpose when logical replication is active, but > > I object on principle to the idea of a field whose name suggests that > > it means one thing and whose value is inconsistent with that > > interpretation. > > Hm. Not sure what a good solution for this is. I don't think we should make > the field independent of wal_level - it doesn't really mean anything with a > lower wal_level. And it increases the illusion that the table is guaranteed to > be a system table or something a bit. Perhaps the field name should hint at > this being logically decoding related? Not sure - I don't know what this is for. I did wonder if maybe it should be testing IsCatalogRelation(relation) || RelationIsUsedAsCatalogTable(relation) i.e. RelationIsAccessibleInLogicalDecoding() with the removal of the XLogLogicalInfoActive() and RelationNeedsWAL() tests. But since I don't know what I'm talking about, all I can say for sure right now is that the field name and the field contents don't seem to align. > > I also notice that 0003 deletes a comment that says "We need to force > > hot_standby_feedback to be enabled at all times so the primary cannot > > remove rows we need," but also that this is the only mention of > > hot_standby_feedback in the entire patch set. If the existing comment > > that we need to do something about that is incorrect, we should update > > it independently of this patch set to be correct. But if the existing > > comment is correct then there ought to be something in the patch that > > deals with it. > > The patch deals with this - we'll detect the removal of row versions that > aren't needed anymore and stop decoding. Of course you'll most of the time > want to use hs_feedback, but sometimes it'll also just be a companion slot on > the primary or such (think slots for failover or such). Where and how does this happen? > > Another part of that same deleted comment says "We need to be able to > > correctly and quickly identify the timeline LSN belongs to," but I > > don't see what the patch does about that, either. I'm actually not > > sure exactly what that's talking about > > Hm - could you expand on what you're unclear about re LSN->timeline? It's just > that we need to read a WAL page for a certain LSN, and for that we need the > timeline? I don't know - I'm trying to understand the meaning of a comment that I think you wrote originally. > > This function's sister, read_local_xlog_page(), contains a bunch of logic > > that tries to make sure that we're always reading every record from the > > right timeline, but there's nothing similar here. I think that would likely > > have to be fixed in order for decoding to work on standbys, but maybe I'm > > missing something. > > I think that part actually works, afaict they both rely on the same > XLogReadDetermineTimeline() for that job afaict. What might be missing is > logic to update the target timeline. Hmm, OK, perhaps I mis-spoke, but I think we're talking about the same thing. read_local_xlog_page() has this: * RecoveryInProgress() will update ThisTimeLineID when it first * notices recovery finishes, so we only have to maintain it for the * local process until recovery ends. */ if (!RecoveryInProgress()) read_upto = GetFlushRecPtr(); else read_upto = GetXLogReplayRecPtr(&ThisTimeLineID); tli = ThisTimeLineID; That's a bulletproof guarantee that "tli" and "ThisTimeLineID" are up to date. The other function has nothing similar. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pgsql-hackers by date: