On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 3:13 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/17/23 18:55, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > This however made me realize the initial sync of sequences may not be
> > correct. I mean, the idea of tablesync is syncing the data in REPEATABLE
> > READ transaction, and then applying decoded changes. But sequences are
> > not transactional in this way - if you select from a sequence, you'll
> > always see the latest data, even in REPEATABLE READ.
> >
> > I wonder if this might result in losing some of the sequence increments,
> > and/or applying them in the wrong order (so that the sequence goes
> > backward for a while).
> >
>
> Yeah, I think my suspicion was warranted - it's pretty easy to make the
> sequence go backwards for a while by adding a sleep between the slot
> creation and the copy_sequence() call, and increment the sequence in
> between (enough to do some WAL logging).
>
> The copy_sequence() then reads the current on-disk state (because of the
> non-transactional nature w.r.t. REPEATABLE READ), applies it, and then
> we start processing the WAL added since the slot creation. But those are
> older, so stuff like this happens:
>
> 21:52:54.147 CET [35404] WARNING: copy_sequence 1222 0 1
> 21:52:54.163 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 990 0 1
> 21:52:54.163 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1023 0 1
> 21:52:54.163 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1056 0 1
> 21:52:54.174 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1089 0 1
> 21:52:54.174 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1122 0 1
> 21:52:54.174 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1155 0 1
> 21:52:54.174 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1188 0 1
> 21:52:54.175 CET [35404] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1221 0 1
> 21:52:54.898 CET [35402] WARNING: apply_handle_sequence 1254 0 1
>
> Clearly, for sequences we can't quite rely on snapshots/slots, we need
> to get the LSN to decide what changes to apply/skip from somewhere else.
> I wonder if we can just ignore the queued changes in tablesync, but I
> guess not - there can be queued increments after reading the sequence
> state, and we need to apply those. But maybe we could use the page LSN
> from the relfilenode - that should be the LSN of the last WAL record.
>
> Or maybe we could simply add pg_current_wal_insert_lsn() into the SQL we
> use to read the sequence state ...
>
What if some Alter Sequence is performed before the copy starts and
after the copy is finished, the containing transaction rolled back?
Won't it copy something which shouldn't have been copied?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
