| From: | Alexander Kukushkin <cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Backward movement of confirmed_flush resulting in data duplication. |
| Date: | 2025-05-14 06:42:42 |
| Message-ID: | CAFh8B==4BkLNWvcEeSnHt01=WRQqmK8HPJ=LBSj1_cbkVi-H_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Dilip,
On Wed, 14 May 2025 at 08:29, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> What I meant wasn’t that the subscriber is moving the confirmed LSN
> backward, nor was I suggesting we fix it by persisting the LSN on the
> subscriber side. My point was: the fact that the subscriber is sending
> an LSN older than one it has already sent, does that indicate a bug on
> the subscriber side? And if so, should the logic be fixed there?
>
In my experience, client applications do a lot of surprisingly not smart
things.
However, it doesn't mean that the server should be blindly accepting
whatever LSN client sends.
I tend to agree with Amit, we shouldn't allow confirmed_flush_lsn to move
backwards.
--
Regards,
--
Alexander Kukushkin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-05-14 06:45:07 | Re: Backward movement of confirmed_flush resulting in data duplication. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2025-05-14 06:35:16 | Re: Limiting overshoot in nbtree's parallel SAOP index scans |