| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
| Date: | 2024-03-29 08:58:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+ovDb0b0dzcuahbL6dvdn874snUp6VWA0=G9CCFYxHAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 9:34 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
<kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for updating the patch! Here is a comment for it.
>
> ```
> + /*
> + * By advancing the restart_lsn, confirmed_lsn, and xmin using
> + * fast-forward logical decoding, we can verify whether a consistent
> + * snapshot can be built. This process also involves saving necessary
> + * snapshots to disk during decoding, ensuring that logical decoding
> + * efficiently reaches a consistent point at the restart_lsn without
> + * the potential loss of data during snapshot creation.
> + */
> + pg_logical_replication_slot_advance(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn,
> + found_consistent_point);
> + ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN();
> + updated_lsn = true;
> ```
>
> You added them like pg_replication_slot_advance(), but the function also calls
> ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin(false) at that time. According to the related
> commit b48df81 and discussions [1], I know it is needed only for physical slots,
> but it makes more consistent to call requiredXmin() as well, per [2]:
>
Yeah, I also think it is okay to call for the sake of consistency with
pg_replication_slot_advance().
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-03-29 08:59:59 | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-29 08:17:55 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |