On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Another question aside from the above point, what if someone has
> > > > specified logical subscribers in synchronous_standby_names? In the
> > > > case of synchronized_standby_slots, we won't proceed with such slots.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, it is a possibility. I have missed this point earlier. Now I
> > > tried a case where I give a mix of logical subscriber and physical
> > > standby in 'synchronous_standby_names' on pgHead, it even takes that
> > > 'mix' configuration and starts waiting accordingly.
> > >
> > > synchronous_standby_names = 'FIRST 2(logicalsub_1, phy_standby_1,
> > > phy_standby_2)';
> > >
> >
> > This should not happen as we don't support syncing failover slots on
> > logical subscribers.
>
> +1
>
> > The other point to consider here is that the user
> > may not have set 'sync_replication_slots' on all the physical standbys
> > mentioned in 'synchronous_standby_names' and in that case, it doesn't
> > make sense to wait for WAL to get flushed on those standbys. What do
> > you think?
> >
>
> Yes, it is a possibility. But then it is a possibility in case of
> 'synchronized_standby_slots' as well. User may always configure one of
> the standbys in 'synchronized_standby_slots' while may not configure
> slot-sync GUCs on that standby (hot_standby_feedback,
> sync_replication_slots etc). In such a case, logical replication is
> dependent upon the concerned physical standby even though latter is
> not syncing failover slots.
>
The difference is that the purpose of 'synchronized_standby_slots' is
to mention slot names for which the user expects logical walsenders to
wait before sending the logical changes to subscribers. OTOH,
'synchronous_standby_names' has a different purpose as well. It is not
clear to me if the users would be interested in syncing failover slots
to all the standbys mentioned in 'synchronous_standby_names'.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
