Here are some review comments for v48-0002
======
doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
1.
+ If slot synchronization is enabled then it is also necessary to
+ specify <literal>dbname</literal> in the
+ <varname>primary_conninfo</varname> string. This will only
be used for
+ slot synchronization. It is ignored for streaming.
I felt the "If slot synchronization is enabled" part should also
include an xref to the enable_slotsync GUC, otherwise there is no
information here about how to enable it.
SUGGESTION
If slot synchronization is enabled (see XXX) ....
======
doc/src/sgml/logicaldecoding.sgml
2.
+ <para>
+ The ability to resume logical replication after failover depends upon the
+ <link
linkend="view-pg-replication-slots">pg_replication_slots</link>.<structfield>sync_state</structfield>
+ value for the synchronized slots on the standby at the time of failover.
+ Only slots that have attained "ready" sync_state ('r') on the standby
+ before failover can be used for logical replication after failover. Slots
+ that have not yet reached 'r' state (they are still 'i') will be dropped,
+ therefore logical replication for those slots cannot be resumed. For
+ example, if the synchronized slot could not become sync-ready on standby
+ due to a disabled subscription, then the subscription cannot be resumed
+ after failover even when it is enabled.
+ If the primary is idle, then the synchronized slots on the standby may
+ take a noticeable time to reach the ready ('r') sync_state. This can
+ be sped up by calling the
+ <function>pg_log_standby_snapshot</function> function on the primary.
+ </para>
2a.
/sync-ready on standby/sync-ready on the standby/
~
2b.
Should "If the primary is idle" be in a new paragraph?
======
doc/src/sgml/system-views.sgml
3.
+ <para>
+ The hot standby can have any of these sync_state values for the slots but
+ on a hot standby, the slots with state 'r' and 'i' can neither be used
+ for logical decoding nor dropped by the user.
+ The sync_state has no meaning on the primary server; the primary
+ sync_state value is default 'n' for all slots but may (if leftover
+ from a promoted standby) also be 'r'.
+ </para></entry>
I still feel we are exposing too much useless information about the
primary server values.
Isn't it sufficient to just say "The sync_state values have no meaning
on a primary server.", and not bother to mention what those
meaningless values might be -- e.g. if they are meaningless then who
cares what they are or how they got there?
======
src/backend/replication/logical/slotsync.c
4. synchronize_one_slot
+ /* Slot ready for sync, so sync it. */
+ if (sync_state == SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Sanity check: With hot_standby_feedback enabled and
+ * invalidations handled appropriately as above, this should never
+ * happen.
+ */
+ if (remote_slot->restart_lsn < slot->data.restart_lsn)
+ elog(ERROR,
+ "not synchronizing local slot \"%s\" LSN(%X/%X)"
+ " to remote slot's LSN(%X/%X) as synchronization "
+ " would move it backwards", remote_slot->name,
+ LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(slot->data.restart_lsn),
+ LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(remote_slot->restart_lsn));
+
+ if (remote_slot->confirmed_lsn != slot->data.confirmed_flush ||
+ remote_slot->restart_lsn != slot->data.restart_lsn ||
+ remote_slot->catalog_xmin != slot->data.catalog_xmin)
+ {
+ /* Update LSN of slot to remote slot's current position */
+ local_slot_update(remote_slot);
+ ReplicationSlotSave();
+ slot_updated = true;
+ }
+ }
+ /* Slot not ready yet, let's attempt to make it sync-ready now. */
+ else if (sync_state == SYNCSLOT_STATE_INITIATED)
+ {
+ /*
+ * Wait for the primary server to catch-up. Refer to the comment
+ * atop the file for details on this wait.
+ */
+ if (remote_slot->restart_lsn < slot->data.restart_lsn ||
+ TransactionIdPrecedes(remote_slot->catalog_xmin,
+ slot->data.catalog_xmin))
+ {
+ if (!wait_for_primary_slot_catchup(wrconn, remote_slot, NULL))
+ {
+ ReplicationSlotRelease();
+ return false;
+ }
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * Wait for primary is over, update the lsns and mark the slot as
+ * READY for further syncs.
+ */
+ local_slot_update(remote_slot);
+ SpinLockAcquire(&slot->mutex);
+ slot->data.sync_state = SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY;
+ SpinLockRelease(&slot->mutex);
+
+ /* Save the changes */
+ ReplicationSlotMarkDirty();
+ ReplicationSlotSave();
+ slot_updated = true;
+
+ ereport(LOG,
+ errmsg("newly locally created slot \"%s\" is sync-ready now",
+ remote_slot->name));
+ }
4a.
It would be more natural in the code if you do the
SYNCSLOT_STATE_INITIATED logic before the SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY because
that is the order those states come in.
~
4b.
I'm not sure if it is worth it, but I was thinking that some duplicate
code can be avoided by doing if/if instead of if/else
if (sync_state == SYNCSLOT_STATE_INITIATED)
{
..
}
if (sync_state == SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY)
{
}
By arranging it this way maybe the SYNCSLOT_STATE_INITIATED code block
doesn't need to do anything except update the sync_state =
SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY; Then it can just fall through to the
SYNCSLOT_STATE_READY logic to do all the
local_slot_update(remote_slot); etc in just one place.
~~~
5. check_primary_info
+ * Checks the primary server info.
+ *
+ * Using the specified primary server connection, check whether we
are cascading
+ * standby. It also validates primary_slot_name for non-cascading-standbys.
+ */
+static void
+check_primary_info(WalReceiverConn *wrconn, bool *am_cascading_standby)
5a.
/we are cascading/we are a cascading/
5b.
/non-cascading-standbys./non-cascading standbys./
~~~
6.
+ CommitTransactionCommand();
+
+ *am_cascading_standby = false;
Maybe it's simpler just to set this default false up-front, replacing
the current assert.
BEFORE:
+ Assert(am_cascading_standby != NULL);
AFTER:
*am_cascading_standby = false; /* maybe overwrite later */
~~~
7.
+/*
+ * Exit the slot sync worker with given exit-code.
+ */
+static void
+slotsync_worker_exit(const char *msg, int code)
+{
+ ereport(LOG, errmsg("%s", msg));
+ proc_exit(code);
+}
This could be written differently (don't pass the exit code, instead
pass a bool) like:
static void
slotsync_worker_exit(const char *msg, bool restart_worker)
By doing it this way, you can keep the special exit code values (0,1)
within this function where you can comment all about them instead of
having scattered comments about exit codes in the callers.
SUGGESTION
ereport(LOG, errmsg("%s", msg));
/* <some big comment here about how the code causes the worker to
restart or not> */
proc_exit(restart_worker ? 1 : 0);
~~~
8. slotsync_reread_config
+ if (restart)
+ {
+ char *msg = "slot sync worker will restart because of a parameter change";
+
+ /*
+ * The exit code 1 will make postmaster restart the slot sync worker.
+ */
+ slotsync_worker_exit(msg, 1 /* proc_exit code */ );
+ }
Shouldn't that message be written as _(), so that it will get translated?
SUGGESTION
slotsync_worker_exit(_("slot sync worker will restart because of a
parameter change"), true /* restart worker */ );
~~~
9. ProcessSlotSyncInterrupts
+ CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS();
+
+ if (ShutdownRequestPending)
+ {
+ char *msg = "replication slot sync worker is shutting down on
receiving SIGINT";
+
+ walrcv_disconnect(wrconn);
+
+ /*
+ * The exit code 0 means slot sync worker will not be restarted by
+ * postmaster.
+ */
+ slotsync_worker_exit(msg, 0 /* proc_exit code */ );
+ }
Shouldn't that message be written as _(), so that it will be translated?
SUGGESTION
slotsync_worker_exit(_("replication slot sync worker is shutting down
on receiving SIGINT"), false /* don't restart worker */ );
~~~
10.
+/*
+ * Cleanup function for logical replication launcher.
+ *
+ * Called on logical replication launcher exit.
+ */
+static void
+slotsync_worker_onexit(int code, Datum arg)
+{
+ SpinLockAcquire(&SlotSyncWorker->mutex);
+ SlotSyncWorker->pid = InvalidPid;
+ SpinLockRelease(&SlotSyncWorker->mutex);
+}
IMO it would make sense for this function to be defined adjacent to
the slotsync_worker_exit() function.
~~~
11. ReplSlotSyncWorkerMain
+ /*
+ * Using the specified primary server connection, check whether we are
+ * cascading standby and validates primary_slot_name for
+ * non-cascading-standbys.
+ */
+ check_primary_info(wrconn, &am_cascading_standby);
...
+ /* Recheck if it is still a cascading standby */
+ if (am_cascading_standby)
+ check_primary_info(wrconn, &am_cascading_standby);
Those 2 above calls could be combined if you want. By defaulting the
am_cascading_standby = true when declared, then you could put this
code at the top of the loop instead of having the same code in 2
places:
+ if (am_cascading_standby)
+ check_primary_info(wrconn, &am_cascading_standby);
======
src/include/commands/subscriptioncmds.h
12.
#include "parser/parse_node.h"
+#include "replication/walreceiver.h"
There is #include, but no other code change. Is this needed?
======
src/include/replication/slot.h
13.
+ /*
+ * Synchronization state for a logical slot.
+ *
+ * The standby can have any value among the possible values of 'i','r' and
+ * 'n'. For primary, the default is 'n' for all slots but may also be 'r'
+ * if leftover from a promoted standby.
+ */
+ char sync_state;
+
All that is OK now, but I keep circling back to my original thought
that since this state has no meaning for the primary server then
a) why do we even care what potential values it might have there, and
b) isn't it better to call this field 'standby_sync_state' to
emphasize it only has meaning for the standby?
e.g.
SUGGESTION
/*
* Synchronization state for a logical slot.
*
* The standby can have any value among the possible values of 'i','r' and
* 'n'. For the primary, this field value has no meaning.
*/
char standby_sync_state;
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
