On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 11:48 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-02-15 18:02:11 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Thanks Andres. I have one more query (both for you and Bertrand). I
> > don't know if this has already been answered somewhere in this mail
> > thread, if yes, please let me know the mail that answers this query.
> >
> > Will there be a problem if we mandate the use of physical replication
> > slots and hot_standby_feedback to support minimum LD on standby. I
> > know people can do a physical replication setup without a replication
> > slot or even with hot_standby_feedback turned off, but are we going to
> > have any issue if we ask them to use a physical replication slot and
> > turn on hot_standby_feedback for LD on standby. This will reduce the
> > code changes required to do conflict handling for logical slots on
> > standby which is being done by v50-0001 and v50-0002* patches
> > currently.
>
> I don't think it would. E.g. while restoring from archives we can't rely on
> knowing that the slot still exists on the primary.
>
> We can't just do corrupt things, including potentially crashing, when the
> configuration is wrong. We can't ensure that the configuration is accurate all
> the time. So we need to detect this case. Hence needing to detect conflicts.
>
OK. Got it, thanks.
>
> > IMHO even in normal scenarios i.e. when we are not doing LD on
> > standby, we should mandate the use of a physical replication slot.
>
> I don't think that's going to fly. There plenty scenarios where you e.g. don't
> want to use a slot, e.g. when you want to limit space use on the primary.
>
I think this can be controlled via max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC, if I
understand it correctly.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
