Re: A few nuances about specifying the timeline with START_REPLICATION

On 18/06/2021 20:27, Jeff Davis wrote:
> A few questions about this comment in walsender.c, originating in
> commit abfd192b1b5b:
>
> /*
> * Found the requested timeline in the history. Check that
> * requested startpoint is on that timeline in our history.
> *
> * This is quite loose on purpose. We only check that we didn't
> * fork off the requested timeline before the switchpoint. We
> * don't check that we switched *to* it before the requested
> * starting point. This is because the client can legitimately
> * request to start replication from the beginning of the WAL
> * segment that contains switchpoint, but on the new timeline, so
> * that it doesn't end up with a partial segment. If you ask for
> * too old a starting point, you'll get an error later when we
> * fail to find the requested WAL segment in pg_wal.
> *
> * XXX: we could be more strict here and only allow a startpoint
> * that's older than the switchpoint, if it's still in the same
> * WAL segment.
> */
>
> 1. I think there's a typo: it should be "fork off the requested
> timeline before the startpoint", right?

Yes, I think you're right.

> 2. It seems to imply that requesting an old start point is wrong, but I
> don't see why. As long as the WAL is there (or at least the slot
> boundaries), what's the problem? Can we either just change the comment
> to say that it's fine to start on an ancestor of the requested timeline
> (and maybe update the docs, too)?

Hmm, I'm not sure if the logic in WalSndSegmentOpen() would work if you
did that. For example, if you had the following WAL segments, because a
timeline switch happened somewhere in the middle of segment 13:

000000040000000000000012
000000040000000000000013
000000050000000000000013
000000050000000000000014

and you requested to start streaming from timeline 5, 0/12000000, I
think WalSndSegmentOpen() would try to open file
"000000050000000000000012" and not find it.

We could teach it to look into the timeline history to find the correct
file, though. Come to think of it, we could remove the START_REPLICATION
TIMELINE option altogether (or rather, make it optional or backwards
compatibility). The server doesn't need it for anything, it knows the
timeline history so the LSN is enough to uniquely identify the starting
point.

If the client asks for a historic timeline, the replication will stop
when it reaches the end of that timeline. In hindsight, I think it would
make more sense to send a message to the client to say that it's
switching to a new timeline, and continue streaming from the new timeline.

> 3. I noticed when looking at this that the terminology in the docs is a
> bit inconsistent between START_REPLICATION and
> recovery_target_timeline.
> a. In recovery_target_timeline:
> i. a numeric value means "stop when this timeline forks"
> ii. "latest" means "follow forks along the newest timeline"
> iii. "current" is an alias for the backup's numerical timeline
> b. In the start START_REPLICATION docs:
> i. "current" means "follow forks along the newest timeline"
> ii. a numeric value that is equal to the current timeline is the
> same as "current"
> iii. a numeric value that is less than the current timeline means
> "stop when this timeline forks"
>
> On point #3, it looks like START_REPLICATION could be improved:
>
> * Should we change the docs to say "latest" rather than "current"?
> * Should we change the behavior so that specifying the current
> timeline as a number still means a historic timeline (e.g. it will stop
> replicating there and emit a tuple)?
> * Should we add some keywords like "latest" or "current" to the
> START_REPLICATION command?
Hmm, the timeline in the START_REPLICATION command is not specifying a
recovery target timeline, so I don't think "latest" or "current" make
much sense there. Per above, it just tells the server which timeline the
requested starting point belongs to, so it's actually redundant.

- Heikki