| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | JoongHyuk Shin <sjh910805(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rui Zhao <zhaorui126(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Persist slot invalidations before publishing them |
| Date: | 2026-09-23 08:38:00 |
| Message-ID: | arOP6DEhgKcsNS5b@bdtpg |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 12:00:39PM +0530, shveta malik wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 11:37 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Another possibility would be to make ReplicationSlotPersistInvalidation() always
> > leave the caller acquired I/O lock held. Slotsync could then release that specific
> > lock in a PG_CATCH() block, something like:
>
> Yes, I agree. I find this approach much better for 2 reasons:
>
> 1) The caller has better control over the lock, which makes sense
> since it is the one acquiring it.
> 2) It makes the code much more understandable. Earlier, it took me a
> while to figure out exactly where the io_in_progress_lock was getting
> released, especially looking at the slotsync patch where it was
> acquired right before calling ReplicationSlotPersistInvalidation().
>
> > "
> > PG_CATCH();
> > {
> > HOLD_INTERRUPTS();
> > LWLockRelease(&slot->io_in_progress_lock);
> > PG_RE_THROW();
> > }
> > PG_END_TRY();
> >
> > LWLockRelease(&slot->io_in_progress_lock);
> > "
> >
> > This would avoid both LWLockReleaseAll() and using LWLockHeldByMe() for normal
> > control flow. Does that sound preferable?
>
> Yes.
Thanks! Done that way in v4 attached.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v4-0001-Persist-slot-invalidations-before-publishing-them.patch | text/x-diff | 29.3 KB |
| v4-0002-Persist-synchronized-slot-invalidations-before-pu.patch | text/x-diff | 7.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2026-09-23 08:48:25 | Re: Revert RI fast-path batching from REL_19_STABLE |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2026-09-23 08:36:10 | Re: [PATCH] Misleading error message for REPACK USING INDEX on shared catalogs |