On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:58 PM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 11:17 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:38 AM shveta malik <shveta.malik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Or a simple solution is that the slotsync worker updates
> > > > > inactive_since as it does for non-synced slots, and disables
> > > > > timeout-based slot invalidation for synced slots.
> > >
> > > I like this idea better, it takes care of such a case too when the
> > > user is relying on sync-function rather than worker and does not want
> > > to get the slots invalidated in between 2 sync function calls.
> >
> > Please find the attached v31 patches implementing the above idea:
> >
>
> Thanks for the patches, please find few comments:
>
> v31-001:
>
> 1)
> system-views.sgml:
> value will get updated after every synchronization from the
> corresponding remote slot on the primary.
>
> --This is confusing. It will be good to rephrase it.
>
> 2)
> update_synced_slots_inactive_since()
>
> --May be, we should mention in the header that this function is called
> only during promotion.
>
> 3) 040_standby_failover_slots_sync.pl:
> We capture inactive_since_on_primary when we do this for the first time at #175
> ALTER SUBSCRIPTION regress_mysub1 DISABLE"
>
> But we again recreate the sub and disable it at line #280.
> Do you think we shall get inactive_since_on_primary again here, to be
> compared with inactive_since_on_new_primary later?
>
I think so.
Few additional comments on tests:
1.
+is( $standby1->safe_psql(
+ 'postgres',
+ "SELECT '$inactive_since_on_primary'::timestamptz <
'$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz AND
+ '$inactive_since_on_standby'::timestamptz < '$slot_sync_time'::timestamptz;"
Shall we do <= check as we are doing in the main function
get_slot_inactive_since_value as the time duration is less so it can
be the same as well? Similarly, please check other tests.
2.
+=item $node->get_slot_inactive_since_value(self, slot_name, reference_time)
+
+Get inactive_since column value for a given replication slot validating it
+against optional reference time.
+
+=cut
+
+sub get_slot_inactive_since_value
I see that all callers validate against reference time. It is better
to name it validate_slot_inactive_since rather than using get_* as the
main purpose is to validate the passed value.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.