Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(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: 2024-02-22 10:14:36
Message-ID: ZdcejBDCr+wlVGnO@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 12:16:34PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:31 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There was a recent commit 801792e to improve error messaging in
> slotsync.c which resulted in conflict. Thus rebased the patch. There
> is no new change in the patch attached

Thanks!

Some random comments about v92_001 (Sorry if it has already been discussed
up-thread):

1 ===

+ * We do not update the 'synced' column from true to false here

Worth to mention from which system view the 'synced' column belongs to?

2 === (Nit)

+#define MIN_WORKER_NAPTIME_MS 200
+#define MAX_WORKER_NAPTIME_MS 30000 /* 30s */

[MIN|MAX]_SLOTSYNC_WORKER_NAPTIME_MS instead? It is used only in slotsync.c so
more a Nit.

3 ===

res = walrcv_exec(wrconn, query, SLOTSYNC_COLUMN_COUNT, slotRow);
-
if (res->status != WALRCV_OK_TUPLES)

Line removal intended?

4 ===

+ if (wal_level < WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)
+ {
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
+ errmsg("slot synchronization requires wal_level >= \"logical\""));
+ return false;
+ }

I think the return is not needed here as it won't be reached due to the "ERROR".
Or should we use "elevel" instead of "ERROR"?

5 ===

+ * operate as a superuser. This is safe because the slot sync worker does
+ * not interact with user tables, eliminating the risk of executing
+ * arbitrary code within triggers.

Right. I did not check but if we are using operators in our remote SPI calls
then it would be worth to ensure they are coming from the pg_catalog schema?
Using something like "OPERATOR(pg_catalog.=)" using "=" as an example.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2024-02-22 10:20:29 Re: Test to dump and restore objects left behind by regression
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2024-02-22 10:12:49 Re: Porting PostgresSQL libraries for QNX710