From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Date: | 2024-03-27 04:52:30 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JqKjMGMFeQYiX7iFmdATZHGy_Nx8uWkV+zWk2BBYktQQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 11:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > 3)
> > update_synced_slots_inactive_time():
> >
> > This assert is removed, is it intentional?
> > Assert(s->active_pid == 0);
>
> Yes, the slot can get acquired in the corner case when someone runs
> pg_sync_replication_slots concurrently at this time. I'm referring to
> the issue reported upthread. We don't prevent one running
> pg_sync_replication_slots in promotion/ShutDownSlotSync phase right?
> Maybe we should prevent that otherwise some of the slots are synced
> and the standby gets promoted while others are yet-to-be-synced.
>
We should do something about it but that shouldn't be done in this
patch. We can handle it separately and then add such an assert.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shveta malik | 2024-03-27 04:54:32 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-03-27 04:40:05 | Re: pgsql: Track last_inactive_time in pg_replication_slots. |