Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla
Subject Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation
Date
Msg-id CAFC+b6pO44=zGqwijzrcyGGTYCM51Y7zS5uQX0_nWjsxW9i3QQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Introduce XID age based replication slot invalidation
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

Thanks for the v5 patch set, I have reviewed and did initial testing on
v5 patch set, and it LGTM, except these

diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
index 286f0f46341..c2ff7e464f0 100644
--- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c
+++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c
@@ -1849,7 +1849,7 @@ ReportSlotInvalidation(ReplicationSlotInvalidationCause cause,
                                else
                                {
                                        /* translator: %s is a GUC variable name */
-                                       appendStringInfo(&err_detail, _("The slot's xmin %u is %d transactions old, which exceeds the configured \"%s\" value of %d."),
+                                       appendStringInfo(&err_detail, _("The slot's catalog_xmin %u is %d transactions old, which exceeds the configured \"%s\" value of %d."),
                                                                         catalog_xmin, (int32) (recentXid - catalog_xmin), "max_slot_xid_age", max_slot_xid_age);
                                }

while testing the active slot XID age invalidation (SIGTERM path) , i 
observed that slot got invalidated , walsender was killed because of
SIGTERM , then starts the infinite-retry-cycle problem where
walreceiver starts walsender and walsender will try to use an invalidated
slot and dies, will think more on this.

--
Thanks,
Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: index prefetching
Next
From: Álvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: table AM option passing