Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:19 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Attaching v10 with the above changes.
> > >
> >
> > The patch does not apply on HEAD. Can you please rebase?
>
> Rebased and made a small change as well to use TopMemoryContext rather
> than create a new context for slot_list.
>

Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments:

1)
/* Clean up slot_names if allocated in TopMemoryContext */
if (slot_names)
{
oldcontext = MemoryContextSwitchTo(TopMemoryContext);
list_free_deep(slot_names);
MemoryContextSwitchTo(oldcontext);
}

I think we can free slot_names without switching the context. Can you
please check this?

2)
We should add a comment for:
a) why we are using the slot-names from the first cycle instead of
fetching all failover slots in each cycle.
b) why are we relocating remote_slot list everytime.


3)
@@ -1130,7 +1180,7 @@ slotsync_reread_config(void)

- Assert(sync_replication_slots);
+ Assert(!AmLogicalSlotSyncWorkerProcess() || sync_replication_slots);

Do we still need this change after slotsync_api_reread_config?

4)
+static void ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts(void);

This is not needed.


5)

+ /* update flag, so that we retry */
+ slot_persistence_pending = true;

Can we tweak it to: 'Update the flag so that the API can retry'

6)
SyncReplicationSlots():
+ /* Free the current remote_slots list */
+ if (remote_slots)
+ list_free_deep(remote_slots);

Do we need a 'remote_slots' check, won't it manage it internally?  We
don't have it in ReplSlotSyncWorkerMain().

7)
slotsync_api_reread_config

+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_CONFIG_FILE_ERROR),
+ errmsg("cannot continue slot synchronization due to parameter changes"),
+ errdetail("Critical replication parameters (primary_conninfo,
primary_slot_name, or hot_standby_feedback) have changed since
pg_sync_replication_slots() started."),
+ errhint("Retry pg_sync_replication_slots() to use the updated
configuration.")));

I am unsure if we need to mention '(primary_conninfo,
primary_slot_name, or hot_standby_feedback)', but would like to know
what others think.

thanks
Shveta