On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:43 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:02 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 2:08 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But neither of those fixes prevents backwards move for confirmed_flush
> > > LSN, as enforced by asserts in the 0005 patch. I don't know if this
> > > assert is incorrect or now. It seems natural that once we get a
> > > confirmation for some LSN, we can't move before that position, but I'm
> > > not sure about that. Maybe it's too strict.
> >
> > Hmm, I'm concerned that it might be another problem. I think there are
> > some cases where a subscriber sends a flush position older than slot's
> > confirmed_flush as a feedback message.
> >
Right, it can happen for cases where subscribers doesn't have to do
anything (for example DDLs) like I have explained in one of my emails
[1]
> > But it seems to be dangerous if
> > we always accept it as a new confirmed_flush value. It could happen
> > that confirm_flush could be set to a LSN older than restart_lsn.
> >
Possible, though I haven't tried to reproduce such a case. But, will
it create any issues? I don't know if there is any benefit in allowing
to move confirmed_flush LSN backward. AFAIR, we don't allow such
backward values to persist. They will temporarily be in memory. I
think as a separate patch we should prevent it from moving backward.
>
> If confirmed_flush LSN moves backwards, it means the transactions
> which were thought to be replicated earlier are no longer considered
> to be replicated. This means that the restart_lsn of the slot needs to
> be at least far back as the oldest of starting points of those
> transactions. Thus restart_lsn of slot has to be pushed further back.
>
I don't see a reason to move restart_lsn backward. Why do you think so?
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BzWQwOe5G8zCYGvErnaXh5%2BDbyg_A1Z3uywSf_4%3DT0UA%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
