On Monday, February 17, 2025 7:31 PM Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 15:54, vignesh C <vignes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 15:27, Shlok Kyal <shlok.kyal....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Currently, we can copy an invalidated slot using the function
> > > 'pg_copy_logical_replication_slot'. As per the suggestion in the
> > > thread [1], we should prohibit copying of such slots.
> > >
> > > I have created a patch to address the issue.
> >
> > This patch does not fix all the copy_replication_slot scenarios
> > completely, there is a very corner concurrency case where an
> > invalidated slot still gets copied:
> > + /* We should not copy invalidated replication slots */
> > + if (src_isinvalidated)
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > +
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > + errmsg("cannot copy an invalidated
> > replication slot")));
> >
> > Consider the following scenario:
> > step 1) Set up streaming replication between the primary and standby nodes.
> > step 2) Create a logical replication slot (test1) on the standby node.
> > step 3) Have a breakpoint in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot if cause
> > is RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL, no need to hold other invalidation causes or
> > add a sleep in InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot function like below:
> > if (cause == RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL)
> > {
> > while (bsleep)
> > sleep(1);
> > }
> > step 4) Reduce wal_level on the primary to replica and restart the primary
> node.
> > step 5) SELECT 'copy' FROM pg_copy_logical_replication_slot('test1',
> > 'test2'); -- It will wait till the lock held by
> > InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot is released while trying to create a
> > slot.
> > step 6) Increase wal_level back to logical on the primary node and
> > restart the primary.
> > step 7) Now allow the invalidation to happen (continue the breakpoint
> > held at step 3), the replication control lock will be released and the
> > invalidated slot will be copied
> >
> > After this:
> > postgres=# SELECT 'copy' FROM
> > pg_copy_logical_replication_slot('test1', 'test2'); ?column?
> > ----------
> > copy
> > (1 row)
> >
> > -- The invalidated slot (test1) is copied successfully:
> > postgres=# select * from pg_replication_slots ;
> > slot_name | plugin | slot_type | datoid | database | temporary
> > | active | active_pid | xmin | catalog_xmin | restart_lsn |
> > confirmed_flush_lsn | wal_status | safe_wal_size | two_phas
> > e | inactive_since | conflicting |
> > invalidation_reason | failover | synced
> >
> -----------+---------------+-----------+--------+----------+-----------+
> --------+------------+------+--------------+-------------+---------------
> ------+------------+---------------+---------
> >
> --+----------------------------------+-------------+----------------------
> --+----------+--------
> > test1 | test_decoding | logical | 5 | postgres | f
> > | f | | | 745 | 0/4029060 | 0/4029098
> > | lost | | f
> > | 2025-02-13 15:26:54.666725+05:30 | t |
> > wal_level_insufficient | f | f
> > test2 | test_decoding | logical | 5 | postgres | f
> > | f | | | 745 | 0/4029060 | 0/4029098
> > | reserved | | f
> > | 2025-02-13 15:30:30.477836+05:30 | f |
> > | f | f
> > (2 rows)
> >
> > -- A subsequent attempt to decode changes from the invalidated slot
> > (test2) fails:
> > postgres=# SELECT data FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('test2', NULL,
> > NULL);
> > WARNING: detected write past chunk end in TXN 0x5e77e6c6f300
> > ERROR: logical decoding on standby requires "wal_level" >= "logical"
> > on the primary
> >
> > -- Alternatively, the following error may occur:
> > postgres=# SELECT data FROM pg_logical_slot_get_changes('test2', NULL,
> > NULL);
> > WARNING: detected write past chunk end in TXN 0x582d1b2d6ef0
> > data
> > ------------
> > BEGIN 744
> > COMMIT 744
> > (2 rows)
> >
> > This is an edge case that can occur under specific conditions
> > involving replication slot invalidation when there is a huge lag
> > between primary and standby.
> > There might be a similar concurrency case for wal_removed too.
> >
>
> Hi Vignesh,
>
> Thanks for reviewing the patch.
Thanks for updating the patch. I have a question related to it.
>
> I have tested the above scenario and was able to reproduce it. I have fixed
> it in
> the v2 patch.
> Currently we are taking a shared lock on ReplicationSlotControlLock.
> This issue can be resolved if we take an exclusive lock instead.
> Thoughts?
It's not clear to me why increasing the lock level can solve it, could you
elaborate a bit more on this ?
Besides, do we need one more invalidated check in the following codes after
creating the slot ?
/*
* Check if the source slot still exists and is valid. We
regard it as
* invalid if the type of replication slot or name has been
changed,
* or the restart_lsn either is invalid or has gone backward.
(The
...
Best Regards,
Hou zj
