Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoDp4Zabk49G94TdWrthfv+0mhHLA6yw-AJxxRSFWPep+g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Slot's restart_lsn may point to removed WAL segment after hard restart unexpectedly  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:39 PM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 4:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 8:17 AM Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a question - is there any interest to backport the solution into
> > > > existing major releases?
> > >
> > > As long as this is the bug, it should be backpatched to all supported
> > > affected releases.
> >
> > Yes, but I think we cannot back-patch the proposed fix to back
> > branches as it changes the ReplicationSlot struct defined in slot.h,
> > which breaks ABI compatibility.
>
> Yes, and I think Vitaly already proposed to address this issue.  This
> aspect also needs to be carefully reviewed for sure.
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 5:32 PM Vitaly Davydov <v.davydov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > I can prepare a patch where restart_lsn_flushed stored
> > outside of ReplicationSlot structure and doesn't affect the existing API.

Oh, I totally missed this part. Sorry for making noise. I'll review
the patch once submitted.

Regarding the proposed patch, I think we can somewhat follow
last_saved_confirmed_flush field of ReplicationSlot. For example, we
can set restart_lsn_flushed when restoring the slot from the disk,
etc.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: allow changing autovacuum_max_workers without restarting
Next
From: Alexander Pyhalov
Date:
Subject: Re: MergeAppend could consider sorting cheapest child path