Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
Date: 2025-08-05 06:22:39
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+oA-NageWrTNukn79H0QV=hZts8WBA4-XA8dhux56sPg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> If we want to avoid continuously syncing newly added slots in later
> cycles and instead focus only on the ones that failed to sync during
> the first attempt, one approach is to maintain a list of failed slots
> from the initial cycle and only retry those in subsequent attempts.
> But this will add complexity to the implementation.
>

There will be some additional code for this but overall it improves
the code in the lower level functions. We may want to use the existing
remote_slot list for this purpose.

The current proposed change in low-level functions appears to be
difficult to maintain, especially the change proposed in
update_and_persist_local_synced_slot(). If we can find a better way to
achieve the same then we can consider the current approach as well.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2025-08-05 06:24:47 Re: Raw parse tree is not dumped to log
Previous Message Chao Li 2025-08-05 06:22:18 Re: GB18030-2022 Support in PostgreSQL