I did some experiments over synchronous replications and
got that cascade replication can`t be synchronous. And
pg_wal_replay_wait() allows us to read your writes
consistency on cascade replication.
Beyond that, I added more tests on multi-standby replication
and cascade replications.
--
Ivan
On 2024-04-02 13:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:41 PM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
8 years, we tried to add this feature, and now we suggest the best way
for this feature is to commit the minimal version first.
Just curious, do you or anyone else have an immediate use
On 2024-04-02 11:14, Andy Fan wrote:
If so, when users call pg_wal_replay_wait, they can get informed when
the wal is replaied to the target_lsn, but they can't know how long
time
it waits unless they check it in application side, I think such
information will be useful for monitor purpose
Thank you Alexander for working on patch, may be we should change some
names:
1) test 043_wait_lsn.pl -> to 043_waitlsn.pl like waitlsn.c and
waitlsn.h
In waitlsn.c and waitlsn.h variables:
2) targret_lsn -> trgLSN like curLSN
3) lsn -> trgLSN like curLSN
--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres
Thank you for your interest to the patch.
I understand you questions, but I fully support Alexander Korotkov idea
to commit the minimal required functionality. And then keep working on
other improvements.
On 2024-03-24 05:39, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 4:28 AM Peter
Thank you for your feedback.
On 2024-03-20 12:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:34 AM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
> 4.2 With an unreasonably high future LSN, BEGIN command waits
> unboundedly, shouldn't we check if the specified LSN is more than
> pg_last_wal_re
Thank you for your feedback.
On 2024-03-20 12:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:34 AM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
> 4.2 With an unreasonably high future LSN, BEGIN command waits
> unboundedly, shouldn't we check if the specified LSN is more than
> pg_last_wal_re
On 2024-03-20 12:11, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:34 AM Kartyshov Ivan
wrote:
> 4.2 With an unreasonably high future LSN, BEGIN command waits
> unboundedly, shouldn't we check if the specified LSN is more than
> pg_last_wal_receive_lsn() error out?
I think
Bharath Rupireddy, thank you for you review.
But here is some points.
On 2024-03-16 10:02, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
4.1 With invalid LSN succeeds, shouldn't it error out? Or at least,
add a fast path/quick exit to WaitForLSN()?
BEGIN AFTER '0/0';
In postgresql '0/0' is Valid pg_lsn, but it is
Intro
==
The main purpose of the feature is to achieve
read-your-writes-consistency, while using async replica for reads and
primary for writes. In that case lsn of last modification is stored
inside application. We cannot store this lsn inside database, since
reads are distributed across
On 2024-03-15 22:59, Kartyshov Ivan wrote:
On 2024-03-11 13:44, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I picked the second option and left only the AFTER clause for the
BEGIN statement. I think this should be enough for the beginning.
Thank you for your rework on your patch, here I made some fixes:
0
On 2024-03-11 13:44, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I picked the second option and left only the AFTER clause for the
BEGIN statement. I think this should be enough for the beginning.
Thank you for your rework on your patch, here I made some fixes:
0) autocomplete
1) less jumps
2) more description
Intro
==
The main purpose of the feature is to achieve
read-your-writes-consistency, while using async replica for reads and
primary for writes. In that case lsn of last modification is stored
inside application. We cannot store this lsn inside database, since
reads are distributed across
Updated, rebased, fixed Ci and added documentation.
We left two different solutions. Help me please to choose the best.
1) Classic (wait_classic_v6.patch)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3cc883048264c2e9af022033925ff8db%40postgrespro.ru
==
advantages: multiple wait events, separate
Add some fixes and rebase.
--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres Professional: www.postgrespro.comdiff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml
index 4a42999b18..657a217e27 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml
@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@
Rebased and ready for review.
I left only versions (due to irreparable problems)
1) Classic (wait_classic_v4.patch)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3cc883048264c2e9af022033925ff8db%40postgrespro.ru
==
advantages: multiple wait events, separate WAIT FOR statement
disadvantages: new
Should rise disscusion on separate utility statement or find
case where procedure version is failed.
1) Classic (wait_classic_v3.patch)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3cc883048264c2e9af022033925ff8db%40postgrespro.ru
==
advantages: multiple wait events, separate WAIT FOR statement
On 2023-11-27 03:08, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I've retried my case with v6 and it doesn't fail anymore. But I
wonder how safe it is to reset xmin within the user-visible function?
We have no guarantee that the function is not called inside the
complex query. Then how will the rest of the
Fix build.meson troubles
--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlogrecovery.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlogrecovery.c
index dbe9394762..422bb1ed82 100644
---
Update patch to fix conflict with master
--
Ivan Kartyshov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Companydiff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlogrecovery.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlogrecovery.c
index dbe9394762..422bb1ed82 100644
---
Here I made new patch of feature, discussed above.
WAIT FOR procedure - waits for certain lsn on pause
==
Synopsis
==
SELECT pg_wait_lsn(‘LSN’, timeout) returns boolean
Where timeout = 0, will wait infinite without timeout
And if timeout = 1, then just check if lsn
Intro==
The main purpose of the feature is to achieve
read-your-writes-consistency, while using async replica for reads and
primary for writes. In that case lsn of last modification is stored
inside
application. We cannot store this lsn inside database, since reads are
distributed
On 2020-04-08 00:27, Tom Lane wrote:
Alexander Korotkov writes:
» WAIT FOR LSN lsn [ TIMEOUT timeout ]
This seems like a really carelessly chosen syntax —- *three* new
keywords, when you probably didn't need any. Are you not aware that
there is distributed overhead in the grammar for
On 2020-04-04 03:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
I think that now we would be fine with single LSN and single TIMEOUT.
In future we may add multiple LSNs/TIMEOUTs or/and support for
expressions as LSNs/TIMEOUTs if we figure out it's necessary.
I also think it's good to couple waiting for lsn with
On 2020-04-03 21:51, Anna Akenteva wrote:
I did some code cleanup and added tests - both for the standalone WAIT
FOR statement and for WAIT FOR as a part of BEGIN. The new patch is
attached.
I did more cleanup and code optimization on waiting events on latch.
And rebase patch.
--
Ivan
Anna, thank you for your review.
On 2020-03-25 21:10, Anna Akenteva wrote:
On 2020-03-21 14:16, Kartyshov Ivan wrote:
and event is:
LSN value [options]
TIMESTAMP value
I would maybe remove WAIT FOR TIMESTAMP. As Robert Haas has pointed
out, it seems a lot like
As it was discussed earlier, I added wait for statement into begin/start
statement.
Synopsis
==
BEGIN [ WORK | TRANSACTION ] [ transaction_mode[, ...] ] wait_for_event
where transaction_mode is one of:
ISOLATION LEVEL { SERIALIZABLE | REPEATABLE READ | READ
COMMITTED
I made some improvements over old implementation WAIT FOR.
Synopsis
==
WAIT FOR [ANY | SOME | ALL] event [, event ...]
and event is:
LSN value options
TIMESTAMP value
and options is:
TIMEOUT delay
UNTIL TIMESTAMP timestamp
ALL - option used
Sorry, I have some troubles on email sending.
On 2020-03-06 08:54, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
The syntax seems getting confused. What happens if we typed in the
command "WAIT FOR TIMESTAMP '...' UNTIL TIMESTAMP ''"? It seems
to me the options is useles. Couldn't the TIMEOUT option be a part
On 2020-03-06 08:54, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
The syntax seems getting confused. What happens if we typed in the
command "WAIT FOR TIMESTAMP '...' UNTIL TIMESTAMP ''"? It seems
to me the options is useles. Couldn't the TIMEOUT option be a part of
event? I know gram.y doesn't accept that
On 2018-03-06 14:50, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 6 March 2018 at 11:24, Dmitry Ivanov
wrote:
In PG11, I propose the following command, sticking mostly to Ants'
syntax, and allowing to wait for multiple events before it returns.
It
doesn't hold snapshot and will not get cancelled by Hot Standby.
31 matches
Mail list logo
