On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:02 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2022-02-07 13:38:38 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> > Are you talking about this scenario - what if the logical replication
> > slot on the publisher is dropped, but is being referenced by the
> > standby where the slot is synchronized?
>
> It's a bit hard to say, because neither in this thread nor in the patch I've
> found a clear description of what the syncing needs to & tries to
> guarantee. It might be that that was discussed in one of the precursor
> threads, but...
>
> Generally I don't think we can permit scenarios where a slot can be in a
> "corrupt" state, i.e. missing required catalog entries, after "normal"
> administrative commands (i.e. not mucking around in catalog entries / on-disk
> files). Even if the sequence of commands may be a bit weird. All such cases
> need to be either prevented or detected.
>
>
> As far as I can tell, the way this patch keeps slots on physical replicas
> "valid" is solely by reorderbuffer.c blocking during replay via
> wait_for_standby_confirmation().
>
> Which means that if e.g. the standby_slot_names GUC differs from
> synchronize_slot_names on the physical replica, the slots synchronized on the
> physical replica are not going to be valid. Or if the primary drops its
> logical slots.
>
>
> > Should the redo function for the drop replication slot have the capability
> > to drop it on standby and its subscribers (if any) as well?
>
> Slots are not WAL logged (and shouldn't be).
>
> I think you pretty much need the recovery conflict handling infrastructure I
> referenced upthread, which recognized during replay if a record has a conflict
> with a slot on a standby. And then ontop of that you can build something like
> this patch.
>
OK. Understood, thanks Andres.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
