On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 8:53 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are some review comments for v20-0002.
>
Thanks Peter for the feedback. Comments from 31 till end are addressed
in v22. First 30 comments will be addressed in the next version.
> ==
> 1. GENERAL - errmsg/elog messages
>
> There are
On Mon, Oct 9, 2023 at 10:51 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> I like the idea and I think that's the one that seems the more reasonable
> to me. I'd vote for this idea with:
>
> - standby_slot_names on the primary (could also be set on standbys in case of
> cascading context)
> - enable_failover
Hi,
On 10/6/23 6:48 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:34 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 10/4/23 1:50 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 7:37 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Sep-27, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > 3. get_local_synced_slot_names
> >
> > + for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
> > + {
> > + ReplicationSlot *s = >replication_slots[i];
> > +
> > + /* Check if it is logical synchronized
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:34 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 10/4/23 1:50 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> On Wed,
On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 2:07 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Sep-27, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > 3. get_local_synced_slot_names
> >
> > + for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
> > + {
> > + ReplicationSlot *s = >replication_slots[i];
> > +
> > + /* Check if it is logical synchronized
On 2023-Sep-27, Peter Smith wrote:
> 3. get_local_synced_slot_names
>
> + for (int i = 0; i < max_replication_slots; i++)
> + {
> + ReplicationSlot *s = >replication_slots[i];
> +
> + /* Check if it is logical synchronized slot */
> + if (s->in_use && SlotIsLogical(s) && s->data.synced)
> + {
>
Hi Ajin. Thanks for addressing my previous review comments from v19.
I checked all the changes. Below are a few follow-up remarks.
On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 7:54 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 2:37 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Here are some more review comments for the patch
Hi,
On 10/4/23 1:50 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
How about an alternate scheme where we
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 12:08 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 10/4/23 7:00 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:56 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > The most simplistic approach would be:
> >
> > 1) maintain standby_slot_names GUC on primary
> > 2) maintain
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> How about an alternate scheme where we define
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> How about an alternate scheme where we define sync_slot_names on
> >> standby but then store the physical_slot_name in the
Hi,
On 10/4/23 7:00 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:56 AM shveta malik wrote:
The most simplistic approach would be:
1) maintain standby_slot_names GUC on primary
2) maintain synchronize_slot_names GUC on physical standby alone.
On primary, let all logical-walsenders wait
Hi,
On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Hi,
On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 4:29 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Shveta,
>
> Thank you for updating the patch!
>
> I found another ERROR due to the slot removal. Is this a real issue?
>
> 1. applied add_sleep.txt, which emulated the case the tablesync worker stucked
>and the primary
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 9:56 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On 10/3/23 12:54 PM,
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot,
Here are some review comments for v20-0002.
==
1. GENERAL - errmsg/elog messages
There are a a lot of minor problems and/or quirks across all the
message texts. Here is a summary of some I found:
ERROR
errmsg("could not receive list of slots from the primary server: %s",
errmsg("invalid
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 9:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2023 at 7:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >>> wrote:
>
Hi,
On 10/3/23 12:54 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
- probably open corner cases like: what if a standby is down? would that mean
that
On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 11:39 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> - probably open corner cases like: what if a standby is down? would that
> >> mean
> >> that synchronize_slot_names
Hi,
On 9/29/23 1:33 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
I think that standby_slot_names could be used to do some filtering (means
for which standby(s) we don't want the logical replication on the primary to go
ahead and for which standby(s) one
On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 6:31 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 9/25/23 6:10 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:16 AM shveta malik
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM shveta malik
> >>>
Hi,
On 9/25/23 6:10 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM shveta malik wrote:
Currently in patch001, synchronize_slot_names is a GUC on both primary
and physical
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:13 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 9/19/23 6:50 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 1) patch001: wait for physical-standby confirmation logic is now
> > integrated with WalSndWaitForWal(). Now walsender waits for physical
> > standby's confirmation to take changes upto
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 7:46 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Ajin, Shveta,
>
> Thank you for rebasing the patch set! Here are new comments for v19_2-0001.
>
Thank You Kuroda-san for the feedback. Most of these are addressed in
v20. Please find my response inline.
> 01.
Hi,
On 9/19/23 6:50 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:19 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:54 PM shveta malik wrote:
PFA v17. It has below changes:
@@ -2498,6 +2500,13 @@ ReorderBufferProcessTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
}
else
{
Here are some more review comments for the patch v19-0002.
This is a WIP these review comments are all for the file slotsync.c
==
src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c
1. wait_for_primary_slot_catchup
+ WalRcvExecResult *res;
+ TupleTableSlot *slot;
+ Oid slotRow[1] = {LSNOID};
+
Hi,
On 9/25/23 10:44 AM, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Hi,
On 9/23/23 3:38 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 6:01 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
There is a difference here that we also need to prevent removal of
rows required by sync_slots. That could be achieved by physical slot
Dear Ajin, Shveta,
Thank you for rebasing the patch set! Here are new comments for v19_2-0001.
01. WalSndWaitForStandbyNeeded()
```
if (SlotIsPhysical(MyReplicationSlot))
return false;
```
Is there a possibility that physical walsenders call this function?
IIUC
Hi,
On 9/23/23 3:38 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 6:01 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Thanks for all the work that has been done on this feature, and sorry
to have been quiet on it for so long.
On 9/18/23 12:22 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:48 PM Hayato
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 3:48 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM shveta malik
> > wrote:
> >
> > Currently in patch001, synchronize_slot_names is a GUC on both primary
> > and physical standby. This GUC tells
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 6:01 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all the work that has been done on this feature, and sorry
> to have been quiet on it for so long.
Thanks for looking into this.
>
> On 9/18/23 12:22 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:48 PM
FYI -- v19 failed to apply cleanly with the latest HEAD.
[postgres@CentOS7-x64 oss_postgres_misc]$ git apply
../patches_misc/v19-0001-Allow-logical-walsenders-to-wait-for-physical-st.patch
error: patch failed: src/test/recovery/meson.build:44
error: src/test/recovery/meson.build: patch does not
On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 6:01 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the work that has been done on this feature, and sorry
> to have been quiet on it for so long.
>
> On 9/18/23 12:22 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:48 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> >>
Hi,
Thanks for all the work that has been done on this feature, and sorry
to have been quiet on it for so long.
On 9/18/23 12:22 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:48 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
Right, but I wanted to know why it is needed. One motivation seemed to know
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Currently in patch001, synchronize_slot_names is a GUC on both primary
> and physical standby. This GUC tells which all logical slots need to
> be synced on physical standbys from the
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:22 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi. Here are some review comments for v17-0002.
> >
>
> Thanks Peter for the feedback. I have addressed most of these in v18
> except 2. Please find my comments for the ones not
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 2:22 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi. Here are some review comments for v17-0002.
>
Thanks Peter for the feedback. I have addressed most of these in v18
except 2. Please find my comments for the ones not addressed.
> This is a WIP and a long way from complete, but I
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:48 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Shveta,
>
> Sorry for the late response.
>
> > Thanks Kuroda-san for the feedback.
> > >
> > > 01. General
> > >
> > > I think the documentation can be added, not only GUCs. How about adding
> > examples
> > > for
Hi. Here are some review comments for v17-0002.
This is a WIP and a long way from complete, but I wanted to send what
I have so far (while it is still current with your latest posted
patches).
==
1. GENERAL - loop variable declaration
There are some code examples like below where the loop
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 4:54 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> PFA v17. It has below changes:
>
@@ -2498,6 +2500,13 @@ ReorderBufferProcessTXN(ReorderBuffer *rb,
ReorderBufferTXN *txn,
}
else
{
+ /*
+ * Before we send out the last set of changes to logical decoding
+ * output plugin, wait for
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:18 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:59 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Hi Shveta. Here are some comments for patch v14-0002
> >
> > The patch is large, so my code review is a WIP... more later next week...
> >
>
> Thanks Peter for the feedback. I have
Dear Shveta,
Sorry for the late response.
> Thanks Kuroda-san for the feedback.
> >
> > 01. General
> >
> > I think the documentation can be added, not only GUCs. How about adding
> examples
> > for combinations of physical and logical replications? You can say that
> > both of
> > physical
On Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 4:40 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Shveta,
>
> I resumed to check the thread. Here are my high-level comments.
> Sorry if you have been already discussed.
Thanks Kuroda-san for the feedback.
>
> 01. General
>
> I think the documentation can be added, not only
Dear Shveta,
I resumed to check the thread. Here are my high-level comments.
Sorry if you have been already discussed.
01. General
I think the documentation can be added, not only GUCs. How about adding examples
for combinations of physical and logical replications? You can say that both of
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 2:15 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Wait a minute ...
>
> From bac0fbef8b203c530e5117b0b7cfee13cfab78b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Bharath Rupireddy
> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 10:17:48 +
> Subject: [PATCH v13 1/2] Allow logical walsenders to wait for physical
>
On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 1:59 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta. Here are some comments for patch v14-0002
>
> The patch is large, so my code review is a WIP... more later next week...
>
Thanks Peter for the feedback. I have tried to address most of these
in v15. Please find my response inline
Hi Shveta. Here are some comments for patch v14-0002
The patch is large, so my code review is a WIP... more later next week...
==
GENERAL
1. Patch size
The patch is 2700 lines. Is it possible to break this up into smaller
self-contained parts to make the reviews more manageable?
~~~
2.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:21 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> I have reviewed the v12-0002 patch and I have some comments. I see the
> latest version posted sometime back and if any of this comment is
> already fixed in this version then feel
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 11:09 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:21 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > I have reviewed the v12-0002 patch and I have some comments. I see the
> > latest version posted sometime back and if
Wait a minute ...
>From bac0fbef8b203c530e5117b0b7cfee13cfab78b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 10:17:48 +
Subject: [PATCH v13 1/2] Allow logical walsenders to wait for physical
standbys
@@ -2498,6 +2500,13 @@ ReorderBufferProcessTXN(ReorderBuffer
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 4:21 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> I have reviewed the v12-0002 patch and I have some comments. I see the
> latest version posted sometime back and if any of this comment is
> already fixed in this version then feel
On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 3:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
I have reviewed the v12-0002 patch and I have some comments. I see the
latest version posted sometime back and if any of this comment is
already fixed in this version then feel free to ignore that.
In general, code still needs a lot more
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 4:09 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:55 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 8/14/23 11:52 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > We (myself and Ajin)
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:55 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/14/23 11:52 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We (myself and Ajin) performed the tests to compute the lag in standby
> > > slots as compared to
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:55 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/14/23 11:52 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > We (myself and Ajin) performed the tests to compute the lag in standby
> > > slots as compared to
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:44 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/14/23 11:52 AM, shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > We (myself and Ajin) performed the tests to compute the lag in standby
> > slots as compared to primary slots with different number of slot-sync
> > workers configured.
> >
>
>
Hi,
On 8/14/23 11:52 AM, shveta malik wrote:
We (myself and Ajin) performed the tests to compute the lag in standby
slots as compared to primary slots with different number of slot-sync
workers configured.
Thanks!
3 DBs were created, each with 30 tables and each table having one
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:22 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 8/8/23 7:01 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:22 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/8/23 7:01 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On 8/4/23 1:32 PM,
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/8/23 7:01 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 8/4/23 1:32 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >>>
Hi,
On 8/8/23 7:01 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Hi,
On 8/4/23 1:32 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Agreed. That is why in v10,v11 patches,
On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/4/23 1:32 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >> On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
>
> >> Sorry to be late, but I gave a second thought and I wonder if we
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 4:52 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 12:13 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:31 AM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM
Hi,
On 8/4/23 1:32 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Sorry to be late, but I gave a second thought and I wonder if we really need
this design.
(i.e start a logical replication background worker on
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2. All candidate standbys will start one slot sync worker per logical
> >>> slot which might not be scalable.
> >>
>
Hi,
On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
2. All candidate standbys will start one slot sync worker per logical
slot which might not be scalable.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea but IIRC, the proposed patch
is using one
Hi,
On 7/24/23 4:32 AM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
Here are my thoughts about this feature:
Thanks for looking at it!
Important considerations:
1. Does this design guarantee the row versions required by subscribers
aren't removed on
On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 12:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:01 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > > The work division amongst the sync workers can
> > > be simple, the logical replication launcher builds a shared memory
> > > structure based on number of slots to sync and
On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 5:01 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > The work division amongst the sync workers can
> > be simple, the logical replication launcher builds a shared memory
> > structure based on number of slots to sync and starts the sync workers
> > dynamically, and each sync worker picks
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 8:54 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if we anyway some sort of design like this because we
> > shouldn't allow to spawn as many workers as the number of databases.
> > There has to be some existing or
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I wonder if we anyway some sort of design like this because we
> shouldn't allow to spawn as many workers as the number of databases.
> There has to be some existing or new GUC like max_sync_slot_workers
> which decided the number of
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > 2. All candidate standbys will start one slot sync worker per logical
> > slot which might not be scalable.
>
> Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good idea but IIRC, the proposed patch
> is using one worker per database (for all slots
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 5:55 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Bharat for letting us know. It is okay to split the patch, it
> > > may definitely help to understand
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:55 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:31 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is having one (or a few more - not
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:31 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Is having one (or a few more - not
> > > necessarily one for each logical slot) worker for all logical
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Bharat for letting us know. It is okay to split the patch, it
> > may definitely help to understand the modules better but shall we take
> > a step back and try to
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Bharat for letting us know. It is okay to split the patch, it
> > > may definitely help to understand
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:03 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Bharat for letting us know. It is okay to split the patch, it
> > may definitely help to understand the modules better but shall we take
> > a step back and try to
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks Bharat for letting us know. It is okay to split the patch, it
> may definitely help to understand the modules better but shall we take
> a step back and try to reevaluate the design first before moving to
> other tasks?
Agree that
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:36 AM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:05 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:37 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > 3. As mentioned in the
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:05 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:37 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> > >
>
> > 3. As mentioned in the initial email, I think it would be better to
> > replace LIST_SLOTS command with a
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:37 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> 3. As mentioned in the initial email, I think it would be better to
> replace LIST_SLOTS command with a SELECT query.
>
I had a look at this thread. I am interested to work
On 14.04.23 15:22, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
Now that the "Minimal logical decoding on standby" patch series
(mentioned up-thread) has been
committed, I think we can resume working on this one ("Synchronizing
slots from primary to standby").
Maybe you have seen this extension that was released
On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:01 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1. Can you please try to explain the functionality of the overall
> > patch somewhere in the form of comments and or commit message?
>
> IIUC, there are 2 core ideas of the
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:37 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> wrote:
> >
> > Please find attached V5 (a rebase of V4 posted up-thread).
> >
> > In addition to the "rebasing" work, the TAP test adds a test about conflict
> > handling (logical slot
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 3:52 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> 2. I want to confirm the reason why new replication command is added.
>
Are you referring LIST_SLOTS command? If so, I don't think that is
required and instead, we can use a query to fetch the required
information.
> IIUC the
>
Hi Kuroda-san,
On 6/29/23 12:22 PM, Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) wrote:
Dear Drouvot,
Hi, I'm also interested in the feature. Followings are my high-level comments.
I did not mention some detailed notations because this patch is not at the
stage.
And very sorry that I could not follow all of this
Hi,
On 6/29/23 12:36 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:19 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Yeah, I think once the slot is dropped we just have to wait for the slot to
be re-created on the standby according to the new synchronize_slot_names GUC.
Assuming the initial slot "creation"
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 3:52 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Drouvot,
>
> Hi, I'm also interested in the feature. Followings are my high-level comments.
> I did not mention some detailed notations because this patch is not at the
> stage.
> And very sorry that I could not follow all
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 12:19 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 6/26/23 12:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:15 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/20/23 12:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> >>> wrote:
> >>
>
Dear Drouvot,
Hi, I'm also interested in the feature. Followings are my high-level comments.
I did not mention some detailed notations because this patch is not at the
stage.
And very sorry that I could not follow all of this discussions.
1. I thought that we should not reuse logical
Hi,
On 6/26/23 12:34 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:15 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
On 6/20/23 12:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
In such a case (slot valid on the primary but invalidated on the standby) then
I think
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 11:15 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 6/20/23 12:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
>
> >> In such a case (slot valid on the primary but invalidated on the standby)
> >> then I think we
> >> could drop and
Hi,
On 6/20/23 12:22 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
In such a case (slot valid on the primary but invalidated on the standby) then
I think we
could drop and recreate the invalidated slot on the standby.
Will it be safe? Because after
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:56 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> On 6/19/23 12:03 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:34 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Also I think we need to handle the case of invalidated replication
> >> slot(s): should
> >> we drop/recreate it/them?
Hi,
On 6/19/23 12:03 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:34 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
Also I think we need to handle the case of invalidated replication slot(s):
should
we drop/recreate it/them? (as the main goal is to have sync slot(s) on the
standby).
Do you intend to
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 11:34 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
wrote:
>
> Also I think we need to handle the case of invalidated replication slot(s):
> should
> we drop/recreate it/them? (as the main goal is to have sync slot(s) on the
> standby).
>
Do you intend to ask what happens to logical slots
701 - 800 of 839 matches
Mail list logo
