On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 12:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 5:53 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the attached v8 patch with above comments addressed.
> > This version includes the documentation updates suggested by
> > Sawada-sa
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 3:57 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 2:54 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the updated patch for Approach 3, which implements the
> > idea suggested by Swada-san above.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patch.
>
&
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:28 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 11:04 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:00 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 8:44 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2025 at 2:1
On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 3:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 1:03 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> >
> > Patch "v5_aprch_3-0001" implements the above Approach 3.
> >
> > Thanks Hou-san for implementing approach-2 and providing th
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 9:26 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> Apparently replication origins in tests are supposed to be prefixed with
> "regress_". Here is a new patch with that fixed.
>
Hi Nathan,
Thanks for the patch! I tested it for functionality and here are a few comments:
1) While testing, I
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 4:17 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here's a rebased version of the patch series.
>
Thanks for the patches.
While testing the GUC "max_conflict_retention_duration", I noticed a
behavior that seems to bypass its intended purpose.
On Pub, if a txn is stuck in the COMMI
HI,
Please find the patches attached for all three approaches.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:45 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 3:16 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:38 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2025 at 7:58 PM A
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 5:23 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 3:06 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Attached is v6 patch with above comments addressed.
>
> Thanks updating the patch. I have some comments:
>
> 1.
>
> The naming style o
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 1:48 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:50 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, Hou-san, for the review and fix patches. I’ve incorporated
> &
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:11 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the attached v5-0001 patch without the stats part.
> >
>
> Review:
> ===
> 1.
> + foreach_ptr(TupleTableSlot, slot, conflic
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 4:30 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the v4 patch (test case changes only).
> >
>
> Comments:
> =
> 1.
> + /*
> + * Report an INSERT_EXISTS or U
Hi Shubham,
Here are a few comments for the v12 patch.
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_createsubscriber.sgml :
1.
+
+ For all source server non-template databases create subscriptions for
+ create subscriptions for databases with the same names on the
+ target server.
is “create sub
false positives.
Note: I have broken down the full error detail message check into
multiple checks to avoid very long lines in the file. I'll see if
there's a better way to compare the full error detail in a single
check.
Attached is the v4 patch (test case changes only).
--
Thanks,
N
how that pans out.
> Meanwhile, I had a couple more replies below.
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 8:37 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:39 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Nisha.
> > >
> > > Some review comments for pat
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 4:31 PM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> > 2) This part of code has another bug:
> > "dbinfos.dbinfo->made_publication = false;" incorrectly modifies
> > dbinfo[0], even if the failure occurs in other databases (dbinfo[1],
> > etc.). Since cleanup_objects_atexit() checks made_pub
On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:10 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 5:01 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hackers,
> > (CCing people involved in related discussions)
> >
> > I am starting this thread to propose a new conflict detection type
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 12:11 PM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 9:27 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > 6.
> > - dbinfo->pubname, dbinfo->dbname, PQresultErrorMessage(res));
> > - dbinfo->made_publication = false; /* don't try again. */
> > + pubname, dbname, PQresultErrorMessage(res
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 8:05 PM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> The attached Patch contains the suggested changes.
>
Hi Shubham,
Here are few comments for 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl
1)
+# Run pg_createsubscriber on node S using '--cleanup-existing-publications'.
+# --verbose is used twice to show more
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 10:30 AM Shubham Khanna
wrote:
>
> Fixed the suggested changes. The attached patch contains the required changes.
>
Hi Shubham,
Thanks for the patch! I tested its functionality and didn't find any
issues so far. I'll continue with further testing.
Here are some review comm
Hi,
Commit f41d846 [1] introduced a race condition that allows a process
to acquire and continue using an invalidated replication slot, leading
to unexpected behavior.
Example Scenario:
Suppose there is an orphaned logical slot that will be invalidated on
the next checkpoint. Consider the followi
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 7:39 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> Some review comments for patch v1-0001
>
> ==
> GENERAL
>
> 1.
> This may be a basic/naive question, but it is unclear to me why we
> care about the stats of confl_multiple_unique_conflicts?
>
> I can understand it would be u
Hi Hackers,
(CCing people involved in related discussions)
I am starting this thread to propose a new conflict detection type
"multiple_unique_conflicts" that identifies when an incoming row
during logical replication violates more than one UNIQUE constraint.
If multiple constraints (such as the p
On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 11:29 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 5:30 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Here is a summary of changes in v78:
> >
>
> A few minor comments:
> 1.
> Slots that appear idle due to a disrupted connection between
> +
Please find the updated v78 patches after a few off-list review rounds.
Here is a summary of changes in v78:
patch-001:
- Fixed bugs reported by Hou-san and Peter in [1] and [2].
- Fixed a race condition reported by Hou-san off-list, which could
lead to an assert failure.
This failure happens when
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:42 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 10, 2025 8:03 PM Nisha Moond
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 12:28 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > 3.
> &g
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 8:49 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> Some review comments about v74-0001
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> 1.
> /* Maximum number of invalidation causes */
> -#define RS_INVAL_MAX_CAUSES RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL
> -
> -StaticAssertDecl(lengthof(SlotInvalida
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 6:12 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 17:33, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Here are the v73 patches incorporating the comments above and the
> > subsequent comments from [1].
> > - patch 002 is rebased on 001 with no new chang
On Sat, Feb 8, 2025 at 12:28 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Friday, February 7, 2025 9:06 PM Nisha Moond
> wrote:
> >
> > Attached v72 patches, addressed the above comments as well as Vignesh's
> > comments in [2].
> > - There are no new changes in
On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 8:00 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha,
>
> Some review comments for v71-0001.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> SlotInvalidationCauses[]
>
> 2.
> [RS_INVAL_WAL_REMOVED] = "wal_removed",
> [RS_INVAL_HORIZON] = "rows_removed",
> [RS_INVAL_WAL_LEVEL] = "wa
On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 10:17 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2025 at 8:02 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it address your concern if we write the actual idle duration
> > &g
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 2:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 19:56, Nisha Moond wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is v69 patch set addressing above and Kuroda-san's comments in [1].
> >
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 12:58 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha,
>
> Some review comments for the patch v69-0002.
>
> ==
> .../t/044_invalidate_inactive_slots.pl
>
> 2.
> +if ($ENV{enable_injection_points} ne 'yes')
> +{
> + plan skip_all => 'Injection points not supported by this build';
> +}
On Wed, Feb 5, 2025 at 10:30 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 19:56, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Here is v69 patch set addressing above and Kuroda-san's comments in [1].
>
> 2) Here we have mentioned about invalidation happens only for a)
>
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 4:42 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 at 15:58, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Here are the v68 patches, incorporating above as well as comments from [1].
> >
> Few comments:
> 1) Let's call Timest
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:45 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 6:35 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
> >
> > I reviewed the v66 patch. I have few comments:
> >
> > 1. I also feel the default value should be set to '0' as suggested by
> > Vignesh in 1st point of [1].
> >
>
> +1. This will ensur
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 9:33 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 3, 2025 8:03 PM Nisha Moond
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hackers,
> > (CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
> >
> > Right now, it is possible for the 'inactive_since&#x
from [1] and [2].
- No change in patch-003 since the last version.
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALDaNm0FS%2BFqQk2dadiJFCMM_MhKROMsJUb%3Db8wtRH6isScQsQ%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs_6%2BNBOt%2BKpQQaBG2R3T-FLS93TbUC27uzyDMu%3D37n-Q%40mail.gmail.com
--
Thanks,
Ni
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:55 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 5:50 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the attached v66 patch set. The base patch(v65-001) is
> > committed now, so I have rebased the patches.
> >
>
> *
>
&
Hi Hackers,
(CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
Right now, it is possible for the 'inactive_since' value of an invalid
replication slot to be updated multiple times, which is unexpected
behavior.
As suggested in the ongoing thread [1], this patch introduces a new
dedicated function to u
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 2:32 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 10:40 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > ==
> > src/backend/replication/slot.c
> >
> > ReportSlotInvalidation:
> >
> > 1.
> > +
> > + case RS_INVAL_IDLE_TIMEOUT:
> > + Assert(inactive_since > 0);
> > + /* translator: se
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:28 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we are often too quick to throw out perfectly good tests.
> >
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 9:56 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 5:23 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > My understanding was that the purpose of this patch was not anything
> > to do with "optimisations" per se, but rather it was (like the
> > $SUBJECT says) to ensure the *same* 'active
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 3:26 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > I think we are often too quick to throw out perfectly good tests.
> > Citing that some similar GUCs don't do testing as a reason to skip
> > them just seems to me like an example of
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 4:20 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 11:00 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > I discussed the above comments further with Peter off-list, and here
> > are the v63 patches with the following changes:
> > patch-001: The Assert
Hello Hackers,
(CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
While implementing slot invalidation based on inactive(idle) timeout
(see [1]), several general optimizations and improvements were
identified.
This thread is a spin-off from [1], intended to address these
optimizations separately from
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:49 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:22 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > Some review comments for patch v61-0001.
> >
> > ==
> > src/backend/replication/slot.c
> >
> > 2.
> > + /*
> > + * T
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 9:15 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is the V24 patch set. I modified 0004 patch to implement the slot
> Invalidation part. Since the automatic recovery could be an optimization and
> the discussion is in progress, I didn't implement that part.
Few comments for p
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:22 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v61-0001.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
>
> 1.
> /*
> * Check if the slot needs to be invalidated. If it needs to be
> - * invalidated, and is not currently a
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 8:26 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Some review comments for patch v61-0002
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> 1.
> * Whether a slot needs to be invalidated depends on the cause. A slot is
> - * removed if it:
> + * invalidated if it:
> * - RS_INVAL_WAL_REMOVED:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 4:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 1:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:02 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:11 PM Nisha Moond
> > > wrote:
> > > > He
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:50 PM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha,
>
> Thanks for providing an updated patch. I have tested the patch and ran
> some tests. The patch works fine. I have few comments:
>
Thanks for your review. Attached are the v61 patches.
I've addressed the comments and rebased patc
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:22 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 15:57, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your feedback! Please find the v59 patch set addressing
> > all the comments.
> > Note: There are no new changes in patch-0001.
>
> Few
On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 11:37 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 at 15:57, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 8:16 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Nisha,
> > >
> > > Here are some minor review comments for pat
Here are the performance test results and analysis with the recent patches.
Test Setup:
- Created Pub and Sub nodes with logical replication and below configurations.
autovacuum_naptime = '30s'
shared_buffers = '30GB'
max_wal_size = 20GB
min_wal_size = 10GB
track_commit_timestamp =
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:02 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:11 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> > [3] Test with pgbench run on both publisher and subscriber.
> >
> > Test setup:
> > - Tests performed on pgHead + v16 patches
> > -
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 6:04 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Attached the V19 patch which addressed comments in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].
>
Here are a couple of initial review comments on v19 patch set:
1) The subscription option 'retain_conflict_info' remains set to
"true" for a subscription e
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 4:52 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 3, 2025 2:36 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >
> > I have one comment on the 0001 patch:
>
> Thanks for the comments!
>
> >
> > + /*
> > +* The changes made by this and later transactions are
nks,
Nisha
From 8154e2baee6fcf348524899c1f8b643a1e3564fc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nisha Moond
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:13:26 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v59 1/2] Enhance replication slot error handling, slot
invalidation, and inactive_since setting logic
In ReplicationSlotAcquire(), raise an error for inval
On Thu, Jan 2, 2025 at 5:44 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> My review comments for patch v58-0001.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
>
> 1.
> /*
> - * If the slot can be acquired, do so and mark it invalidated
> - * immediately. Otherwise we
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 9:22 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
>
> Few comments:
> 1) We have disabled the similar configuration max_slot_wal_keep_size
> by setting to -1, as this GUC also is in similar lines, should we
> disable this and let the user configure it?
> +/*
> + * Invalidate replication slots tha
On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 11:05 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 10:37 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 3:12 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 4:10 PM Nisha Moond
> >> wrote:
> >
On Fri, Dec 20, 2024 at 3:12 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 4:10 PM Nisha Moond
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is the v56 patch set with the above comments incorporated.
> >
>
> Review comments:
> ===
> 1.
> + {
> + {&
Here is further performance test analysis with v16 patch-set.
In the test scenarios already shared on -hackers [1], where pgbench was run
only on the publisher node in a pub-sub setup, no performance degradation
was observed on either node.
In contrast, when pgbench was run only on the subscri
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 9:58 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> Thanks for the v55* patches.
>
> I have no comments for patch v55-0001.
>
> I have only 1 comment for patch v55-0002 regarding some remaining
> nitpicks (below) about the consistency of phrases.
>
> ==
>
> SUGGESTIONS:
>
> Do
On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 8:14 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> Here are some review comments for patch v54-0002.
> ==
> src/test/recovery/t/043_invalidate_inactive_slots.pl
>
> 5.
> +# Wait for slot to first become idle and then get invalidated
> +sub wait_for_slot_invalidation
> +{
> +
On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 9:42 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
>
> Now that we support idle_replication_slot_timeout in milliseconds, we
> can set this value from 1s to 1ms or 10millseconds and change sleep to
> usleep, this will bring down the test execution time significantly:
+1
v55 implements the test us
Here are the test steps and analysis for epoch-related handling
(Tested with v15 Patch-Set).
In the 'update_deleted' detection design, the launcher process
compares XIDs to track minimum XIDs, and the apply workers maintain
the oldest running XIDs. The launcher also requests publisher status
at re
2Ct39yg%40mail.gmail.com
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPtHbYNxPvtMfs7jARbsVcFXL1%3DC9SO3Q93NgVDgbKN7LQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
Thanks,
Nisha
From 713871d8cda02f2b70c63983fc49dede3097f016 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nisha Moond
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:13:26 +0530
Subject: [PATCH v54
M79f34LLBGq4UeRuZ1URWP6JNZtdN2khYPrLc1YqrQ%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/TYAPR01MB5692B7687EE7981AA91BA5B9F5362%40TYAPR01MB5692.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
--
Thanks,
Nisha
From b7e55950ae7577dfc8ae8893157d6b6124fdba01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nisha Moond
Date: Mon, 18 N
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 5:20 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha. Here are some review comments for patch v51-0002.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> ReplicationSlotAcquire:
>
> 2.
> GENERAL.
>
> This just is a question/idea. It may not be feasible to change. It
> seems like there is
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 1:29 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Dear Nisha,
>
> >
> > Attached v51 patch-set addressing all comments in [1] and [2].
> >
>
> Thanks for working on the feature! I've stated to review the patch.
> Here are my comments - sorry if there are something which have alrea
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:47 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:29 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> > 12.
> > /*
> > - * If the slot can be acquired, do so and mark it invalidated
> > - * immediately. Otherwise we'll sign
On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 2:44 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> >
> > We are setting inactive_since when the replication slot is released.
> > We are marking the slot as inactive only if it has been released.
> > However, there's a scenario where the network connection between the
> > publisher and subscribe
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 8:39 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha,
>
> Here are some review comments for the patch v50-0002.
>
> ==
> src/backend/replication/slot.c
>
> InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot:
>
> 1.
> + if (now &&
> + TimestampDifferenceExceeds(s->inactive_since, now,
> +replication
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 1:29 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 at 12:43, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the v49 patch set:
> > - Fixed the bug reported in [1].
> > - Addressed comments in [2] and [3].
> >
> > I've split the pat
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 8:24 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the V9 patch set which addressed above comments.
>
Reviewed v9 patch-set and here are my comments for below changes:
@@ -1175,10 +1189,29 @@ ApplyLauncherMain(Datum main_arg)
long elapsed;
if (!sub->enabled)
+ {
+ can_ad
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 5:29 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Hi Nisha.
>
> Thanks for the recent patch updates. Here are my review comments for
> the latest patch v48-0001.
>
Thank you for the review. Comments are addressed in v49 version.
Below is my response to comments that may require further discu
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 9:14 AM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:00, Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > Please find the v48 patch attached.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 9:40 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > When we promote hot
Attached is the v49 patch set:
- Fixed the bug reported in [1].
- Addressed comments in [2] and [3].
I've split the patch into two, implementing the suggested idea in
comment #5 of [2] separately in 001:
Patch-001: Adds additional error reports (for all invalidation types)
in ReplicationSlotAcqui
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 3:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:12 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:05 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, all good suggestions, updated patch attached.
>
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 11:05 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
> Yes, all good suggestions, updated patch attached.
>
Few comments for the changes under "inactive_since" description:
+The time when slot synchronization (see )
+was most recently stopped. NULL if the slot
+has
Please find the v48 patch attached.
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 9:40 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> When we promote hot standby with synced logical slots to become new
> primary, the logical slots are never invalidated with
> 'inactive_timeout' on new primary. It seems the check in
> SlotInactiveTimeout
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 12:22 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
> >
>
> Thank
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 3:31 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 2:49 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > > > Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> > > > comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
> > > >
>
> When the synced s
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 3:31 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> Please find the attached v46 patch having changes for the above review
> comments and your test review comments and Shveta's review comments.
>
Hi,
I’ve reviewed this thread and am interested in working on the
remaining tasks and commen
> Here is the V5 patch set which addressed above comments.
>
Here are a couple of comments on v5 patch-set -
1) In FindMostRecentlyDeletedTupleInfo(),
+ /* Try to find the tuple */
+ while (index_getnext_slot(scan, ForwardScanDirection, scanslot))
+ {
+ Assert(tuples_equal(scanslot, searchslot, e
On Tue, Oct 1, 2024 at 9:48 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:55 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 4:29 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta mal
On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:59 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 11:04 AM Peter Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 2:27 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith wrote:
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > 13. General - ordering of conflict_type
On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 1:00 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> Here are some review comments for v14-0001.
> ~~~
> 7.
> +ALTER SUBSCRIPTION name
> RESET CONFLICT RESOLVER FOR ( class="parameter">conflict_type)
>
> I can see that this matches the implementation, but I was wondering
> why don't you permit r
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 4:00 PM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 7:51 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Nisha Moond writes:
> > > While considering the implementation of timestamp-based conflict
> > > resolution (last_update_wins) in logical repl
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 7:51 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Nisha Moond writes:
> > While considering the implementation of timestamp-based conflict
> > resolution (last_update_wins) in logical replication (see [1]), there
> > was a feedback at [2] and the discussion on
Hello Hackers,
(CC people involved in the earlier discussion)
While considering the implementation of timestamp-based conflict
resolution (last_update_wins) in logical replication (see [1]), there
was a feedback at [2] and the discussion on whether or not to manage
clock-skew at database level. We
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:40 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:46 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 14:03, Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 7:42 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> &
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:40 AM Nisha Moond wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 10:46 AM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Sept 2024 at 14:03, Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 7:42 PM vignesh C wrote:
> > >
> &
On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 2:05 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 4:07 PM shveta malik wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:30 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>> > > >
>> >
>> > The review is WIP. Please find a few comme
On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 12:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Hello hackers,
> (Cc people involved in the earlier discussion)
>
> I would like to discuss the $Subject.
>
> While discussing Logical Replication's Conflict Detection and
> Resolution (CDR) design in [1] , it came to our notice that the
> c
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:43 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:39 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find issues which need some thoughts and approval for
> > time-based resolution and clock-skew.
> >
> > 1)
> > Time based conflict resolution and two phase transactions:
> >
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 2:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 3:45 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 4:08 PM Nisha Moond
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The patches have been rebased on the latest pgHead following the merg
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:39 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 3:44 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> >
> > For clock-skew and timestamp based resolution, if needed, I will post
> > another email for the design items where suggestions are needed.
> >
>
> Please find issues which need
On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 10:39 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 3:44 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> >
> > For clock-skew and timestamp based resolution, if needed, I will post
> > another email for the design items where suggestions are needed.
> >
>
> Please find issues which need
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
