Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JqKjMGMFeQYiX7iFmdATZHGy_Nx8uWkV+zWk2BBYktQQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 3)
> > update_synced_slots_inactive_time():
> >
> > This assert is removed, is it intentional?
> > Assert(s->active_pid == 0);
>
> Yes, the slot can get acquired in the corner case when someone runs
> pg_sync_replication_slots concurrently at this time. I'm referring to
> the issue reported upthread. We don't prevent one running
> pg_sync_replication_slots in promotion/ShutDownSlotSync phase right?
> Maybe we should prevent that otherwise some of the slots are synced
> and the standby gets promoted while others are yet-to-be-synced.
>

We should do something about it but that shouldn't be done in this
patch. We can handle it separately and then add such an assert.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: pgsql: Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots.
Next
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation