On 2020-12-23 14:56:07 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote: > I want to share an idea I've looked at a few times where I've run into > situations where logical slots were inadvertently dropped, or where it > became necessary to decode changes in the past on a slot. > > As most of you will know you can't just create a logical slot in the past. > Even if it was permitted, it'd be unsafe due to catalog_xmin retention > requirements and missing WAL. > > But if we can arrange a physical replica to replay the WAL of interest and > decode each commit as soon as it's replayed by the startup process, we know > the needed catalog rows must all exist, so it's safe to decode the change. > > So it should be feasible to run logical decoding in standby, even without a > replication slot, so long as we: > > * pause startup process after each xl_xact_commit > * wake the walsender running logical decoding > * decode and process until ReorderBufferCommit for the just-committed xact > returns > * wake the startup process to decode the up to the next commit
I don't think it's safe to just do this for each xl_xact_commit - we can remove needed rows at quite a few places, not just around transaction commit.
Good point.
I vaguely recall spotting a possible decoding-on-standby issue with eager removal of rows that are still ahead of the global xmin if the primary "knows" can't be needed based on info about currently running backends. But when looking over code related to HOT, visibility, and vacuum now I can't for the life of me remember exactly what it was or find it. Hopefully I just misunderstood at the time or was getting confused between decoding on standby and xact streaming.
Rows needed to correctly decode rows earlier in the transaction might not be available by the time the commit record was logged.
When can that happen?
I think you'd basically have to run logical decoding in lockstep with WAL replay, i.e. replay one record, then call logical decoding for that record, replay the next record, ...
That sounds likely to be unusably slow. The only way I can see it having any hope of moving at a reasonable rate would be to run a decoding session inside the startup process itself so we don't have to switch back/forth for each record. But I imagine that'd probably cause a whole other set of problems.
