Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bertrand Drouvot
Subject Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()
Date
Msg-id Zh5DPsa38T0NnJEe@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()  (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()  (shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 02:06:45PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 1:55 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > I personally feel adding the additional check for sync_replication_slots may
> > not improve the situation here. Because the GUC sync_replication_slots can
> > change at any point, the GUC could be false when performing this addition check
> > and is set to true immediately after the check, so It could not simplify the logic
> > anyway.
> 
> +1.
> I feel doc and "cannot synchronize replication slots concurrently"
> check should suffice.
> 
> In the scenario which Hou-San pointed out,  if after performing the
> GUC check in SQL function, this GUC is enabled immediately and say
> worker is started sooner than the function could get chance to sync,
> in that case as well, SQL function will ultimately get error "cannot
> synchronize replication slots concurrently", even though GUC is
> enabled.  Thus, I feel we should stick with samer error in all
> scenarios.

Okay, fine by me, let's forget about checking sync_replication_slots then.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stefan Fercot
Date:
Subject: Re: Add recovery to pg_control and remove backup_label
Next
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: [PATCH] Replace magic constant 3 with NUM_MERGE_MATCH_KINDS