Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | shveta malik |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAJpy0uD4EfaUMwek6vFS3cQo8Eh2GkrhmpdAQDARt5iiGPbrkA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Responses |
RE: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 4:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > Here is the V33 patch set which includes the following changes: > Thank You for the patches, please find few comments for patch003: 1) + /* + * Skip the track_commit_timestamp check by passing it as + * true, since it has already been validated during CREATE + * SUBSCRIPTION and ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET commands. + */ + CheckSubConflictInfoRetention(sub->retainconflictinfo, + true, opts.enabled); + Is there a special reason for disabling WARNING while enabling the subscription? If rci subscription was created in disabled state and track_commit_timestamp was enabled at that time, then there will be no WARNING. But while enabling the sub at a later stage, it may be possible that track_commit_timestamp is off but rci as ON. 2) * The worker has not yet started, so there is no valid * non-removable transaction ID available for advancement. */ + if (sub->retainconflictinfo) + can_advance_xmin = false; Shall we change comment to: Only advance xmin when all workers for rci enabled subscriptions are up and running. 3) Assert(MyReplicationSlot); - Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(new_xmin)); Assert(TransactionIdPrecedesOrEquals(MyReplicationSlot->data.xmin, new_xmin)); + if (!TransactionIdIsValid(new_xmin)) + return; a) Why have we replaced Assert with 'if' check? In which scenario do we expect new_xmin as Invalid here? b) Even if we have if-check, shall it come before : Assert(TransactionIdPrecedesOrEquals(MyReplicationSlot->data.xmin, new_xmin)); 4) DisableSubscriptionAndExit: + /* + * Skip the track_commit_timestamp check by passing it as true, since it + * has already been validated during CREATE SUBSCRIPTION and ALTER + * SUBSCRIPTION SET commands. + */ + CheckSubConflictInfoRetention(MySubscription->retainconflictinfo, true, + false); This comment makes sense during alter-sub enable, here shall we change it to: Skip the track_commit_timestamp check by passing it as true as it is not needed to be checked during subscription-disable. 5) postgres=# alter subscription sub3 set (retain_conflict_info=false); ERROR: cannot set option retain_conflict_info for enabled subscription Do we need this restriction during disable of rci as well? 6) + <para> + If the <link linkend="sql-createsubscription-params-with-retain-conflict-info"><literal>retain_conflict_info</literal></link> + option is altered to <literal>false</literal> and no other subscription + has this option enabled, the additional replication slot that was created + to retain conflict information will be dropped. + </para> It will be good to mention the slot name as well. 7) + * Verify that the max_active_replication_origins and max_replication_slots + * configurations specified are enough for creating the subscriptions. This is + * required to create the replication origin and the conflict detection slot + * for each subscription. */ We shall rephrase the comment, it gives the feeling that a 'conflict detection slot' is needed for each subscription. thanks Shveta
pgsql-hackers by date: