Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 9:15 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:10 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > ======
> > src/backend/replication/walsender.c
> >
> > 5. NeedToWaitForWal
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Check if the standby slots have caught up to the flushed position. It
> > + * is good to wait up to the flushed position and then let the WalSender
> > + * send the changes to logical subscribers one by one which are already
> > + * covered by the flushed position without needing to wait on every change
> > + * for standby confirmation.
> > + */
> > + if (NeedToWaitForStandbys(flushed_lsn, wait_event))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + *wait_event = 0;
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> >
> > 5a.
> > The comment (or part of it?) seems misplaced because it is talking
> > WalSender sending changes, but that is not happening in this function.
> >
>
> I don't think so. This is invoked only by walsender and a static
> function. I don't see any other better place to mention this.
>
> > Also, isn't what this is saying already described by the other comment
> > in the caller? e.g.:
> >
>
> Oh no, here we are explaining the wait order.

I think there is a scope of improvement here. The comment inside
NeedToWaitForWal() which states that we need to wait here for standbys
on flush-position(and not on each change) should be outside of this
function. It is too embedded. And the comment which states the order
of wait (first flush and then standbys confirmation) should be outside
the for-loop in WalSndWaitForWal(), but yes we do need both the
comments. Attached a patch (.txt) for comments improvement, please
merge if appropriate.

thanks
Shveta