| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | John H <johnhyvr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Allow logical failover slots to wait on synchronous replication | 
| Date: | 2024-06-11 10:00:46 | 
| Message-ID: | ZmggTvl7Kqd8teMW@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:25:10PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote:
> > The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running
> > clusters with quorum-based synchronous replicas. For instance, if
> > the user has  synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' it's a
> > bit tedious to have to reconfigure the standby_slot_names to set it to
> > the most updated 3 sync replicas whenever different sync replicas start
> > lagging. In the event that both GUCs are set, 'standby_slot_names' takes
> > precedence.
> 
> Hm.  IIUC you'd essentially need to set standby_slot_names to "A,B,C,D,E"
> to get the desired behavior today.  That might ordinarily be okay, but it
> could cause logical replication to be held back unnecessarily if one of the
> replicas falls behind for whatever reason.  A way to tie standby_slot_names
> to synchronous replication instead does seem like it would be useful in
> this case.
FWIW, I have the same understanding and also think your proposal would be
useful in this case.
Regards,
-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2024-06-11 10:36:06 | Re: Logical Replication of sequences | 
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2024-06-11 09:54:30 | Re: Addressing SECURITY DEFINER Function Vulnerabilities in PostgreSQL Extensions |