Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1Le0Z6W_+oY+M4vV=fjwFMJRg3WguPr3LQAfEqATrSLbg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 6:11 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
>
> On 2022-May-02, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> > I think it is possible to expose a list of publications for each
> > walsender as it is stored in each walsenders
> > LogicalDecodingContext->output_plugin_private. AFAIK, each walsender
> > can have one such LogicalDecodingContext and we can probably share it
> > via shared memory?
>
> I guess we need to create a DSM each time a walsender opens a
> connection, at START_REPLICATION time.  Then ALTER PUBLICATION needs to
> connect to all DSMs of all running walsenders and see if they are
> reading from it.  Is that what you have in mind?  Alternatively, we
> could have one DSM per publication with a PID array of all walsenders
> that are sending it (each walsender needs to add its PID as it starts).
> The latter might be better.
>

While thinking about using DSM here, I came across one of your commits
f2f9fcb303 which seems to indicate that it is not a good idea to rely
on it but I think you have changed dynamic shared memory to fixed
shared memory usage because that was more suitable rather than DSM is
not portable. Because I see a commit bcbd940806 where we have removed
the 'none' option of dynamic_shared_memory_type. So, I think it should
be okay to use DSM in this context. What do you think?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To:
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: