On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 4:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2025 at 1:41 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Since other statistics counter names are camel cases I think it's
> > > better to follow that for the new counter.
> >
> > Makes sense, done with memoryLimitHits in v2
6)
I tried to test the patch. When sequences are more than the
batch-size, but not enough to make a complete batch of max size, I get
this error:
LOG: logical replication sequence synchronization for subscription
"sub1" - total unsynchronized: 118
LOG: logical replication sequence synchronizatio
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 4:07 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> Thanks for the comments, these are handled in the attached patch.
>
Please find a few comments:
patch005:
1)
GetSubscriptionRelations:
+ /* Skip sequences if they were not requested */
+ if (!get_sequences && (relkind == RELKIND_SEQUENCE))
+
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 7:29 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Ashutosh Sharma
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ajin,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 4:16 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > The approach seems valid and should work, but introducing a new file
> > like promote.inprogress for this purpose might be excessive. We can
> >
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:54 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Few comments:
> >
> > 1)
> > postgres=# select slot_name,
> > total_bytes,plugin_filtered_bytes,plugin_sent_bytes from
> > pg_stat_replication_slots order by slot_name;
> > slot_name | total_bytes | plugin_filtered_bytes | plugin_
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:20 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Hi Ajin,
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 4:16 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 1:56 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > The approach seems valid and should work, but introducin
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 7:14 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 12:24:26PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Here's the next patch which considers all the discussion so far. It
> > adds four fields to pg_stat_replication_slots.
> > - plugin - name of the output plugi
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 11:34 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 7:01 PM Fabrice Chapuis
> wrote:
> >
> Another problem as you pointed out is inconsistent behaviour across
> switchovers. On the first switchover, we get the error on new standby:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 5:12 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 11:53 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 6:17 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 2:45 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote
Few comments:
1)
The message of patch001 says:
When a sequence is synchronized to the subscriber, the page LSN of the
sequence from the publisher is also captured and stored in
pg_subscription_rel.srsublsn. This LSN will reflect the state of the
sequence at the time of synchronization. By com
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 2:36 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
>
> This is addressed in the attached patch, also rebased the patch
> because of recent commits.
>
One of the patches conflict with recent commit 0d48d393 (launcher.c
changes) and thus needs a rebase.
thanks
Shveta
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 6:17 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 2:45 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached v11 patch addressing the above comments.
> > >
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:08 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:54 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 15, 2025 8:11 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 1:07 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
One concern:
if (should_stop_conflict_info_retention(rdt_data))
+ {
+ /*
+ * Stop retention if not yet. Otherwise, reset to the initial phase to
+ * retry all phases. This is required to recalculate the current wait
+ * time and resume retention if the time falls within
+ * max_retention_duratio
On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 8:55 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I agree. Here is a V73 patch that will restart the worker if the retention
> resumes. I also addressed other comments posted by Amit[1].
>
Thanks for the patch. Few comments:
1)
There is a small window where worker can exit while
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 7:29 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 9:17 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:19 PM Ashutosh Sharma
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > + *
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 3:16 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> We already read the recovery signal files (standby.signal or
> recovery.signal) at the start of StartupXLOG() via InitWalRecovery(),
> which sets the StandbyModeRequested flag. Couldn’t we use this to
> distinguish whether the se
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 2:29 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 8, 2025 7:21 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 8, 2025 3:13 PM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 5:03 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 1:32 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Here the version 1 of the patch with the modifications.
> I do a git diff --check until there are no more errors.
> In a next version of the patch, I think I have make change to call
> ReplicationSlotCreate() function with the value
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 2:19 PM Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> + * required resources. Clear any leftover 'synced' flags on replication
> + * slots when in crash recovery on the primary. The DB_IN_CRASH_RECOVERY
> + * state check ensures that this code is only reached when a standby
> + * ser
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 5:23 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 11:21 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is a spin-off thread from [1].
> >
> > Currently, in the slot-sync worker, we have an error scenario [2]
> > wh
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 5:37 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attached v11 patch addressing the above comments.
>
Please find a few comments:
1)
+ Retry is done after 2
+ * sec wait. Exits early if promotion is triggered or certain critical
We can say: Retry is done after SLOTSYNC_API_NAPTIME_MS wait
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 11:47 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is V71 patch set which addressed above comments and [1].
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments on 001:
1)
In compute_min_nonremovable_xid, when 'wait_for_xid' is true, we
should have Assert(!worker->oldest_n
Hi,
This is a spin-off thread from [1].
Currently, in the slot-sync worker, we have an error scenario [2]
where, during slot synchronization, if we detect a slot with the same
name and its synced flag is set to false, we emit an error. The
rationale is to avoid potentially overwriting a user-crea
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 3:06 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Coverity is not happy with commit a850be2fe:
>
> /srv/coverity/git/pgsql-git/postgresql/src/backend/replication/logical/worker.c:
> 3276 in FindDeletedTupleInLocalRel()
> 3270 * maybe_advance_nonremovable_xid() for
On Fri, Sep 5, 2025 at 6:51 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 6:50 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Flag used by pg_sync_replic
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 3:19 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 6:47 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > > Attaching v10 with the above changes.
> > >
> >
> >
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 3:30 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As reported by Robert[1], it is worth adding a test for the race condition in
> the RecordTransactionCommitPrepared() function to reduce the risk of future
> code
> changes:
>
> /*
> * Note it is important to
On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 11:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attaching v10 with the above changes.
>
The patch does not apply on HEAD. Can you please rebase?
thanks
Shveta
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 3:30 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > Here is V70 patch set.
> > >
> >
Please find a few comments on v70-003:
1)
Doc of dead_tuple_retention_active says:
True if retain_dead_tuples is enabled and the retention duration for
Few trivial comments for doc:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:45 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is V70 patch set.
> >
>
> The patch v70-0001 looks good to me. Verified, all the old issues are
> resolved.
>
> Will resume review of v70-0002 now.
>
Please find a few comments on v70
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 10:24 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Few trivial comments for doc:
Sorry, the email got sent without comments.
1)
+It is important to note that when
wal_level is set to
+replica the effective WAL level can
automatically change
comma after replica missi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 5:07 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I reviewed the patch internally and tweaked a small detail of the apply worker
> to reduce the waiting time in the main loop when max_retention_duration is
> defined (set wait_time = min(wait_time, max_retention_duration)). Also, I
On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 11:43 AM Shlok Kyal wrote:
>
> Hi Fabrice,
>
> Thanks for providing the patch. I reviewed your patch and have
> following comment:
>
> 1. I think we should add a commit message in the patch. It would help
> to give an understanding of the patch.
>
> 2. I tried applying patc
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 4:14 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -1276,7 +1331,7 @@ wait_for_slot_activity(bool some_slot_upd
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:49 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Here is the new version patch set which also addressed Shveta's comments[1].
>
Thanks for the patch.
On 001 alone, I’m observing a behavior where, if sub1 has stopped
retention, and I then create a new subscription sub2, the worker
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 2:20 PM Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 11:42 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 3:01 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:59 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 4:29 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM shveta malik
> > >
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 9:58 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:44 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:53 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I've removed them.
> > > Attaching patch v8
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 9:11 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> What is the procedure to create this patch. Thank you for your help.
>
We use 'git format-patch' to generate formatted patches. I have given
a few links ([1],[2],[3)] on know-how.
I usually use these steps:
git add
git add
git c
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:12 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 2:32 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 12:54 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've attached the updated patch that incorporated t
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 8:02 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I noticed that Cfbot failed to compile the document due to a typo after
> renaming
> the subscription option. Here are the updated V67 patches to fix that, only
> the doc
> in 0001 is modified.
>
Please find a few comments:
pat
On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 7:55 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> For the first step (a), the pg_create_logical_replication_slot interface is
> extended.
> The slot on the new attached standby will be dropped and recreated if the
> flag allow_overwrite is set to true.
> I tested the modified source, co
On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 7:54 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My colleague Nisha reported an issue to me off-list: dead tuples can't
> be removed when retain_dead_tuples is enabled for a subscription with no
> tables.
>
> This appears to stem from the inability to advance the non-remova
Please find some more comments:
1)
In CheckSubDeadTupleRetention(), shall we have below instead of
retain_dead_tuples check in all conditions?
if (retain_dead_tuples)
guc checks (wal_level and tracl_commit)
else
max retention check
2)
Currently stop and resume messages are:
~~
LOG: logic
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 12:54 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> I've attached the updated patch that incorporated the comments and is
> rebased to the current HEAD.
>
Thanks for the patch, please find a few comments concerning LOG messages:
1)
slotsync worker gives LOG:
LOG: replication slot synchr
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:08 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> I have also addressed all the comments from [1] in the attached
> v20250823 version patch.
> [1] -
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1%2BoVQW8oP%3DLo1X8qac6dzg-fgGQ6R_F_psfokUEqe%2Ba6w%40mail.gmail.com
>
Thank You for the patches
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 12:09 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:06 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Attach the V65 patch set which addressed above and
> > Shveta's comments[1].
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches, please
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 3:51 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I found that we don't need to expose LogicalDecodingCtlData in
> logicalctl.h header file. I've updated some cosmetic changes including
> that point.
>
> I think the patch is getting pretty good shape
Yes, I agree.
> and am aiming at
>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2025 at 10:06 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> Attach the V65 patch set which addressed above and
> Shveta's comments[1].
>
Thank You for the patches, please find a few comments on v64 itself (I
think valid on v65 as well):
1) in resume_conflict_info_retention(), shall we rewri
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 5:10 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration'
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 10:53 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> I've removed them.
> Attaching patch v8 addressing the above comments.
>
Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments:
1)
When the API is in progress, and meanwhile in another session we turn
off hot_standby_feedback, the API session
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 10:34 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 3:11 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find a few comments:
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
> >
> > 1)
> > ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots:
> > + bool
On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 2:09 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 21, 2025 2:01 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree. Here is V63 versi
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 2:25 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2025 at 23:33, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > I imagined something like case 2. For logical replication of tables,
> > if we support DDL replication (i.e., CREATE/ALTER/DROP TABLE), all
> > changes the apply worker executes are s
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:12 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> I agree. Here is V63 version which implements this approach.
>
Thank You for the patches.
> The retention status is recorded in the pg_subscription catalog
> (subretentionactive) to prevent unnecessary retention initiation upon s
Please find a few comments:
1)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots:
+ bool dropped = false;
We can name 'dropped ' as 'dropped_logical' similar to ReplicationSlotCleanup.
2)
ReplicationSlotsDropDBSlots()
+
+ if (dropped && nlogicalslots == 0)
+ DisableLogicalDecodingIfNecessary();
I could not understan
On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 10:55 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> Attaching patch v7 addressing all the above comments.
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
1)
We are not resetting 'slot_persistence_pending' to false anywhere. So
once it hits the flow which sets it to true, it will ne
Few more comments:
1)
src/sgml/monitoring.sgml:
+
+ True if retain_dead_tuples
+ is enabled and the duration for which information useful for conflict
+ detection is retained by this apply worker does not exceed
+ max_conflict_retention_duration;
NULL for
+ par
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:28 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Patch v6 attached.
>
Thanks Ajin. Please find my comments:
1)
SyncReplicationSlots:
+ remote_slots = fetch_or_refresh_remote_slots(wrconn, NIL);
+
+ /* Retry until all slots are sync ready atleast */
+ for (;;)
+ {
+ bool some_slot_update
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 9:29 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Thanks for sharing this. In fact, I agree, introducing an allow_overwrite
> slot property makes seems cleaner than a GUC for this specific use case.
>
> a) At first, an extension of pg_create_logical_replication_slot() could be
> propos
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 4:15 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:41 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here is the V61 patch set which addressed above comments and the comment by
> > Nisha[2].
> >
>
> Thank You for the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:42 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> >
> > 4)
> > For the DETAIL part of resume and stop messages, how about these:
> >
> > The retention duration for information used in conflict detection has
> > exceeded the limit of xx.
> > The retention duration for information used in confl
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 10:41 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Here is the V61 patch set which addressed above comments and the comment by
> Nisha[2].
>
Thank You for the patch. I tested the patch, please find a few comments:
1)
Now when it stops-retention and later resumes it due to the fa
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 7:01 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Thanks Shveta for coming on this point again and fixing the link.
> The idea is to check if the slot has same name to try to resynchronize it
> with the primary.
> ok the check on the failover status for the remote slot is perhaps redundan
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:37 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 11:22 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's also a minor merge conflict because func.sgml is not split
> > into multiple files.
> >
>
> Yes, I fixed this.
>
Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments:
025 at 2:21 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 2:06 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2)
> > > > > postgres=# create subscription sub2 connection 'dbname
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 2:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> I agree. So, following the above points and some off-list discussions, I have
> revised the option to be a subscription option in the V60 version.
>
Thank You for the patches. Tried to test the new sub-level parameter,
have few comme
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 8:52 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While testing the replication slot synchronization feature, I set up
> three instances on the same machine:
>
> - Physical replication primary (also Logical replication publisher)
> - Physical replication standby
> - Logical replicatio
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 8:58 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > So logically for PostgreSQL its an
> > > user table but yeah
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 10:10 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, August 5, 2025 10:09 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> > Here is V57 patch set which addressed most of comments.
> >
> > In this version, I also fixed a bug that the apply worker continued to find
> > dead
> > tuples e
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:50 PM Fabrice Chapuis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> An issue occurred during the initial switchover using PostgreSQL version
> 17.5. The setup consists of a cluster with two nodes, managed by Patroni
> version 4.0.5.
> Logical replication is configured on the same instance, and the
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 3:08 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 1:43 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks Shveta for your opinion on the design.
>
> > > On Tue, Aug 5
On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 3:30 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:23 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Please find a few comments on v6:
> >
> > 1)
> > +/*
> > + * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
> &
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 6:05 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:46 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > 7)
> > > Shall we rename 'max_conflict_retention_duration'
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> > approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:54 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Currently we log conflicts to the server's log file and updates, this
> approach has limitations, 1) Difficult to query and analyze, parsing
> plain text log files for conflict details is inefficient. 2) Lack of
> structured data, key conflict
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 4:29 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
> >
> > The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
> >
>
> Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
>
> 1)
>
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 2:28 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> The attached v20250806 version patch has the changes for the same.
>
Thank You for the patches. Please find a few comments:
1)
* If 'resync_all_sequences' is false:
* Add or remove tables and sequences that have been added to or removed
Please find a few comments on v6:
1)
+/*
+ * Initialize logical decoding status on shmem at server startup. This
+ * must be called ONCE during postmaster or standalone-backend startup,
+ * before initializing replication slots.
+ */
+void
+StartupLogicalDecodingStatus(bool last_status)
The comme
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 6:18 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
>
> I've attached the updated version patch.
>
Thank You for the patch. The patch does not apply to the latest head
due to conflict with slot-sync fix (commit-Id: 4614d53d).
thanks
Shveta
On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 7:35 AM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:28 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 5:14 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:38 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
>
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 3:41 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 12:19 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Sat, Aug 2, 2025 at 4:53 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 5:00 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Sawada-san,
> >
> > > I thought we could fix this issue by checking the number of in-use
> > > logical slots while holding ReplicationSlotControlLock and
> > > L
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 11:31 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 2:50 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > 5)
> > I tried a test where there were 4 slots on the publisher, where one
> > was getting used while the others were not. Initiated
> > pg_sync_
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 9:16 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for confirming. Here is V56 patch set which addressed all the
> comments including the comments from Amit[1] and Shveta[2].
>
> I have merged V55-0002 into 0001 and updated the list of author
> and reviewers based on my knowle
On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 12:02 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
> >
> >
> > Patch v3 attached.
> >
>
> Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
>
>
> 1)
> it hit
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:11 PM Ajin Cherian wrote:
>
>
> Patch v3 attached.
>
Thanks for the patch. I tested it, please find a few comments:
1)
it hits an assert
(slotsync_reread_config()-->Assert(sync_replication_slots)) when API
is trying to sync and is in wait loop while in another session,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 3:49 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, July 31, 2025 5:26 PM shveta malik
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > This is th
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 10:51 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> This is the V54 patch set, with only patch 0001 updated to address the latest
> comments.
>
Thanks for the patch.
While performing tests on the latest patch, I found an assert in
tablesync worker in FindDeletedTupleInLocalRel (se
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 11:16 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> > changes for the same.
> >
> Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 3:37 PM vignesh C wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, the attached v20250728 version patch has the
> changes for the same.
>
Thanks for the patches, please find a few comments:
1)
WARNING: WITH clause parameters do not affect sequence synchronization
a)
How about:
WITH cl
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 11:45 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you for testing the patch!
>
> I've reworked the locking part in the patch. The attached v4 patch
> should address all review comments including your previous
> comments[1].
>
Thank You for the patch. I have not reviewed fully, but
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 4:38 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
> >
>
> Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, bu
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 4:38 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
wrote:
>
>
> The V53-0001 also includes Shveta's comments in [1].
>
Thanks, I have not yet completed the review, but please find a few
comments on 001:
1)
IsIndexUsableForFindingDeletedTuple()
We first have:
+ /*
+ * A frozen transaction ID in
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 12:37 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2)
> > >
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 7:17 AM Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 6:46 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > Sounds reasonable.
> > Thinking out loud, when cleaning up after a backend or background
> > worker crash, process_pm_child_exit() is invoked, which sub
1 - 100 of 663 matches
Mail list logo
