Re: [HACKERS] Logical decoding on standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 23 March 2017 at 00:17, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-03-22 15:59:42 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 22 March 2017 at 13:06, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> >> The parts I think are important for Pg10 are:
>> >
>> >> * Ability to create logical slots on replicas
>> >
>> > Doesn't this also imply recovery conflicts on DROP DATABASE?
>>
>> Not needed until the slot is in use, which is a later patch.
>
> Hm? We need to drop slots, if they can exist / be created, on a standby,
> and they're on a dropped database.  Otherwise we'll reserve resources,
> while anyone connecting to the slot will likely just receive errors
> because the database doesn't exist anymore.  It's also one of the
> patches that can quite easily be developed / reviewed, because there
> really isn't anything complicated about it.  Most of the code is already
> in Craig's patch, it just needs some adjustments.

Right, I'm not too concerned about doing that, and it's next on my
TODO as I clean up the split patch series.

>> >> * Ability to advance (via feedback or via SQL function) - no need to
>> >> actually decode and call output plugins at al
>> >
>> > That pretty much requires decoding, otherwise you really don't know how
>> > much WAL you have to retain.
>>
>> Knowing how much WAL to retain is key.
>>
>> Why would decoding tell you how much WAL to retain?
>
> Because decoding already has the necessary logic?  (You need to retain
> enough WAL to restart decoding for all in-progress transactions etc).

Indeed; after all, standby status updates from the decoding client
only contain the *flushed* LSN. The downstream doesn't know the
restartpoint LSN, it must be tracked by the upstream.

It's also necessary to maintain our catalog_xmin correctly on the
standby so we can send it via hot_standby_feedback to a physical
replication slot used on the master, ensuring the master doesn't
remove catalog tuples we may still need.

> I don't know what you're on about with that statement.  I've spent a
> good chunk of time looking at the 0003 patch, even though it's large
> and contains a lot of different things.  I suggested splitting things up.
> I even suggested what to move earlier after Craig agreed with that
> sentiment, in the mail you're replying to, because it seems
> independently doable.

I really appreciate the review, as I'm all too aware of how time
consuming it can be.

From my PoV, the difficulty I'm in is that this patch series has
languished for most of the Pg 10 release cycle with no real input from
stakeholders in the logical decoding area, so while the review is
important, the fact that it's now means that it pretty comprehensively
blocks the patch for Pg 10. I asked on list for input on structure
(if/how to split it up) literally months ago, for example.

I've been struggling to get some kind of support for logical decoding
on standbys for most of two release cycles, and there are people
climbing the walls wanting it. I'm trying to make sure it's done
right, but I can't do that alone, and it's hard to progress when I
don't know what will be expected until it's too late to do anything
about it.

I guess all we can do at this point is get the foundations in place
and carry on for Pg 11, where the presence of in-core logical
replication will offer a lever to actually push this in. In the mean
time I'll have to continue carrying the out-of-tree failover slots
patch for people who use logical decoding and want it to be reliable.

-- Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services