Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

From: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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: 2024-03-01 07:15:45
Message-ID: ZeGAoY6UflxBMUOM@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 Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 03:22:55PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> Here are some review comments for v102-0001.
>
> ======
> doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
>
> 1.
> + <para>
> + Lists the streaming replication standby server slot names that logical
> + WAL sender processes will wait for. Logical WAL sender processes will
> + send decoded changes to plugins only after the specified replication
> + slots confirm receiving WAL. This guarantees that logical replication
> + slots with failover enabled do not consume changes until those changes
> + are received and flushed to corresponding physical standbys. If a
> + logical replication connection is meant to switch to a physical standby
> + after the standby is promoted, the physical replication slot for the
> + standby should be listed here. Note that logical replication will not
> + proceed if the slots specified in the standby_slot_names do
> not exist or
> + are invalidated.
> + </para>
>
> Should this also mention the effect this GUC has on those 2 SQL
> functions? E.g. Commit message says:
>
> Additionally, The SQL functions pg_logical_slot_get_changes and
> pg_replication_slot_advance are modified to wait for the replication
> slots mentioned in 'standby_slot_names' to catch up before returning.

I think that's also true for all the ones that rely on
pg_logical_slot_get_changes_guts(), means:

- pg_logical_slot_get_changes
- pg_logical_slot_peek_changes
- pg_logical_slot_get_binary_changes
- pg_logical_slot_peek_binary_changes

Not sure it's worth to mention the "binary" ones though as their doc mention
they behave as their "non binary" counterpart.

Regards,

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tender Wang 2024-03-01 07:18:11 Re: "type with xxxx does not exist" when doing ExecMemoize()
Previous Message jian he 2024-03-01 07:03:37 Re: Improve readability by using designated initializers when possible