On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:52 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 10:47 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 7:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAICU, InvalidateObsoleteReplicationSlots() is not serialized with
> > > this operation. So, isn't it possible that the source slot exists at
> > > the later position in ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots and the
> > > loop traversing slots is already ahead from the point where the newly
> > > copied slot is created?
> >
> > Good point. I think it's possible.
> >
> > > If so, the newly created slot won't be marked
> > > as invalid whereas the source slot will be marked as invalid. I agree
> > > that even in such a case, at a later point, the newly created slot
> > > will also be marked as invalid.
> >
> > The wal_status of the newly created slot would immediately become
> > 'lost' and the next checkpoint will invalidate it. Do we need to do
> > something to deal with this case?
> >
>
> + /* Check if source slot became invalidated during the copy operation */
> + if (second_slot_contents.data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE)
> + ereport(ERROR,
> + errmsg("cannot copy replication slot \"%s\"",
> + NameStr(*src_name)),
> + errdetail("The source replication slot was invalidated during the
> copy operation."));
>
> How about adding a similar test as above for MyReplicationSlot? That
> should suffice the need because we have already acquired the new slot
> by this time and invalidation should signal this process before
> marking the new slot as invalid.
IIUC in the scenario you mentioned, the loop traversing slots already
passed the position of newly created slot in
ReplicationSlotCtl->replication_slots array, so
MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated is still RS_INVAL_NONE, no?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
