RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

From: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nisha Moond <nisha(dot)moond412(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(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: 2024-03-04 13:26:13
Message-ID: OS0PR01MB5716AB56177CDE559109238B94232@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Monday, March 4, 2024 7:22 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 07:56:32AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > Here is the V104 patch which addressed above and Peter's comments.
>
> Thanks!
>
> A few more random comments:

Thanks for the comments!

>
> 1 ===
>
> + The function may be blocked if the specified slot is a failover
> + enabled
>
> s/blocked/waiting/ ?

Changed.

>
> 2 ===
>
> + * specified slot when waiting for them to catch up. See
> + * StandbySlotsHaveCaughtup for details.
>
> s/StandbySlotsHaveCaughtup/StandbySlotsHaveCaughtup()/ ?

Changed.

>
> 3 ===
>
> + /* Now verify if the specified slots really exist and have
> + correct type */
>
> remove "really"?

Changed.

>
> 4 ===
>
> + /*
> + * Don't need to wait for the standbys to catch up if there is no value in
> + * standby_slot_names.
> + */
> + if (standby_slot_names_list == NIL)
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't need to wait for the standbys to catch up if we are on a
> standby
> + * server, since we do not support syncing slots to cascading standbys.
> + */
> + if (RecoveryInProgress())
> + return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't need to wait for the standbys to catch up if they are already
> + * beyond the specified WAL location.
> + */
> + if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(standby_slot_oldest_flush_lsn) &&
> + standby_slot_oldest_flush_lsn >= wait_for_lsn)
> + return true;
>
> What about using OR conditions instead?
>
> 5 ===
>
> +static bool
> +NeedToWaitForStandby(XLogRecPtr target_lsn, XLogRecPtr flushed_lsn,
> + uint32 *wait_event)
>
> Not a big deal but does it need to return a bool? (I mean it all depends of the
> *wait_event value). Is it for better code readability in the caller?
>
> 6 ===
>
> +static bool
> +NeedToWaitForWal(XLogRecPtr target_lsn, XLogRecPtr flushed_lsn,
> + uint32 *wait_event)
>
> Same questions as for NeedToWaitForStandby().

I also feel the current style looks a bit cleaner, so didn’t change these.

Best Regards,
Hou zj

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2024-03-04 13:26:47 RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
Previous Message Ronan Dunklau 2024-03-04 13:16:28 Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes"