On 10.02.22 22:47, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Feb  8, 2022 at 08:27:32PM +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
Which means that if e.g. the standby_slot_names GUC differs from
synchronize_slot_names on the physical replica, the slots synchronized on the
physical replica are not going to be valid.  Or if the primary drops its
logical slots.


Should the redo function for the drop replication slot have the capability
to drop it on standby and its subscribers (if any) as well?

Slots are not WAL logged (and shouldn't be).

I think you pretty much need the recovery conflict handling infrastructure I
referenced upthread, which recognized during replay if a record has a conflict
with a slot on a standby.  And then ontop of that you can build something like
this patch.


OK. Understood, thanks Andres.

I would love to see this feature in PG 15.  Can someone explain its
current status?  Thanks.

The way I understand it:

1. This feature (probably) depends on the "Minimal logical decoding on standbys" patch. The details there aren't totally clear (to me). That patch had some activity lately but I don't see it in a state that it's nearing readiness.

2. I think the way this (my) patch is currently written needs some refactoring about how we launch and manage workers. Right now, it's all mangled together with logical replication, since that is a convenient way to launch and manage workers, but it really doesn't need to be tied to logical replication, since it can also be used for other logical slots.

3. It's an open question how to configure this. My patch show a very minimal configuration that allows you to keep all logical slots always behind one physical slot, which addresses one particular use case. In general, you might have things like, one set of logical slots should stay behind one physical slot, another set behind another physical slot, another set should not care, etc. This could turn into something like the synchronous replication feature, where it ends up with its own configuration language.

Each of these are clearly significant jobs on their own.


Reply via email to