Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bertrand Drouvot |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Date | |
Msg-id | ZgZv5kiM0QWPZNWM@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal Whole thread Raw |
In response to | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby ("Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 07:23:11AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > On Friday, March 29, 2024 2:48 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 01:06:15AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > > Attach a new version patch which fixed an un-initialized variable > > > issue and added some comments. Also, temporarily enable DEBUG2 for the > > > 040 tap-test so that we can analyze the possible CFbot failures easily. > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > + if (remote_slot->confirmed_lsn != slot->data.confirmed_flush) > > + { > > + /* > > + * By advancing the restart_lsn, confirmed_lsn, and xmin using > > + * fast-forward logical decoding, we ensure that the required > > snapshots > > + * are saved to disk. This enables logical decoding to quickly > > reach a > > + * consistent point at the restart_lsn, eliminating the risk of > > missing > > + * data during snapshot creation. > > + */ > > + > > pg_logical_replication_slot_advance(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn, > > + > > found_consistent_point); > > + ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN(); > > + updated_lsn = true; > > + } > > > > Instead of using pg_logical_replication_slot_advance() for each synced slot and > > during sync cycles what about?: > > > > - keep sync slot synchronization as it is currently (not using > > pg_logical_replication_slot_advance()) > > - create "an hidden" logical slot if sync slot feature is on > > - at the time of promotion use pg_logical_replication_slot_advance() on this > > hidden slot only to advance to the max lsn of the synced slots > > > > I'm not sure that would be enough, just asking your thoughts on this (benefits > > would be to avoid calling pg_logical_replication_slot_advance() on each sync > > slots and during the sync cycles). > > Thanks for the idea ! > > I considered about this. I think advancing the "hidden" slot on promotion may be a > bit late, because if we cannot reach the consistent point after advancing the > "hidden" slot, then it means we may need to remove all the synced slots as we > are not sure if they are usable(will not loss data) after promotion. What about advancing the hidden slot during the sync cycles then? > The current approach is to mark such un-consistent slot as temp and persist > them once it reaches consistent point, so that user can ensure the slot can be > used after promotion once persisted. Right, but do we need to do so for all the sync slots? Would a single hidden slot be enough? > Another optimization idea is to check the snapshot file existence before calling the > slot_advance(). If the file already exists, we skip the decoding and directly > update the restart_lsn. This way, we could also avoid some duplicate decoding > work. Yeah, I think it's a good idea (even better if we can do this check without performing any I/O). Regards, -- Bertrand Drouvot PostgreSQL Contributors Team RDS Open Source Databases Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
pgsql-hackers by date: