Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Alexey Lesovsky |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAGnetYfRbP3F_AMpXDbUEqR6xaM-bKiSoK5PCK+zvFPoeE6QDA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
(Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I'd like to suggest thinking twice about the view name (and function used in view DDL) - "pg_stat_logical_replication_error" contains very common "logical replication" words, but the view contains errors related to subscriptions only. In the future there could be other kinds of errors related to logical replication, but not related to subscriptions - what will you do?
Is pg_stat_subscription_errors or
pg_stat_logical_replication_apply_errors better?
It seems to me 'pg_stat_subscription_conflicts' proposed by Amit Kapila is the most suitable, because it directly says about conflicts occurring on the subscription side. The name 'pg_stat_subscription_errors' is also good, especially in case of further extension if some kind of similar errors will be tracked.
> 3. Add a counter field with total number of errors - it helps to calculate errors rates and aggregations (sum), and don't lose information about errors between view checks.
Do you mean to increment the error count if the error (command, xid,
and relid) is the same as the previous one? or to have the total
number of errors per subscription? And what can we infer from the
error rates and aggregations?
To be honest, I hurried up when I wrote the first email, and read only about stats view. Later, I read the starting email about the patch and rethought this note.
As I understand, when the conflict occurs, replication stops (until conflict is resolved), an error appears in the stats view. Now, no new errors can occur in the blocked subscription. Hence, there are impossible situations when many errors (like spikes) have occurred and a user didn't see that. If I am correct in my assumption, there is no need for counters. They are necessary only when errors might occur too frequently (like pg_stat_database.deadlocks). But if this is possible, I would prefer the total number of errors per subscription, as also proposed by Amit.
As I understand, when the conflict occurs, replication stops (until conflict is resolved), an error appears in the stats view. Now, no new errors can occur in the blocked subscription. Hence, there are impossible situations when many errors (like spikes) have occurred and a user didn't see that. If I am correct in my assumption, there is no need for counters. They are necessary only when errors might occur too frequently (like pg_stat_database.deadlocks). But if this is possible, I would prefer the total number of errors per subscription, as also proposed by Amit.
Under "error rates and aggregations" I also mean in the context of when a high number of errors occured in a short period of time. If a user can read the "total errors" counter and keep this metric in his monitoring system, he will be able to calculate rates over time using functions in the monitoring system. This is extremely useful.
I also would like to clarify, when conflict is resolved - the error record is cleared or kept in the view? If it is cleared, the error counter is required (because we don't want to lose all history of errors). If it is kept - the flag telling about the error is resolved is needed (or set xid to NULL). I mean when the user is watching the view, he should be able to identify if the error has already been resolved or not.
--
Regards, Alexey
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 10:58 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 7:33 PM Alexey Lesovsky <lesovsky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Have a few notes about pg_stat_logical_replication_error from the DBA point of view (which will use this view in the future).
Thank you for the comments!
> 1. As I understand it, this view might contain many errors related to different subscriptions. It is better to name "pg_stat_logical_replication_errors" using the plural form (like this done for stat views for tables, indexes, functions).
Agreed.
> Also, I'd like to suggest thinking twice about the view name (and function used in view DDL) - "pg_stat_logical_replication_error" contains very common "logical replication" words, but the view contains errors related to subscriptions only. In the future there could be other kinds of errors related to logical replication, but not related to subscriptions - what will you do?
Is pg_stat_subscription_errors or
pg_stat_logical_replication_apply_errors better?
> 2. Add a field with database name or id - it helps to quickly understand to which database the subscription belongs.
Agreed.
> 3. Add a counter field with total number of errors - it helps to calculate errors rates and aggregations (sum), and don't lose information about errors between view checks.
Do you mean to increment the error count if the error (command, xid,
and relid) is the same as the previous one? or to have the total
number of errors per subscription? And what can we infer from the
error rates and aggregations?
> 4. Add text of last error (if it will not be too expensive).
Agreed.
> 5. Rename the "action" field to "command", as I know this is right from terminology point of view.
Okay.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
С уважением Алексей В. Лесовский
pgsql-hackers by date: