On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 1:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 3:19 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 7:56 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Since Two processes (e.g. the slotsync worker and
> > > pg_sync_replication_slots()) concurrently fetch and update the slot
> > > information, there is a race condition where slot's
> > > confirmed_flush_lsn goes backward.
> > >
> >
> > Right, this is possible, though there shouldn't be a problem because
> > anyway, slotsync is an async process. Till we hold restart_lsn, the
> > required WAL won't be removed. Having said that, I can think of two
> > ways to avoid it: (a) We can have some flag in shared memory using
> > which we can detect whether any other process is doing slot
> > syncronization and then either error out at that time or simply wait
> > or may take nowait kind of parameter from user to decide what to do?
> > If this is feasible, we can simply error out for the first version and
> > extend it later if we see any use cases for the same (b) similar to
> > restart_lsn, if confirmed_flush_lsn is getting moved back, raise an
> > error, this is good for now but in future we may still have another
> > similar issue, so I would prefer (a) among these but I am fine if you
> > prefer (b) or have some other ideas like just note down in comments
> > that this is a harmless case and can happen only very rarely.
>
> Thank you for sharing the ideas. I would prefer (a). For (b), the same
> issue still happens for other fields.
I agree that (a) looks better. On a separate note, while looking at
this API pg_sync_replication_slots(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) shouldn't there
be an optional parameter to give one slot or multiple slots or all
slots as default, that will give better control to the user no?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com