On Sat, Sep 21, 2024 at 6:34 AM John H wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:44 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The difference is that the purpose of 'synchronized_standby_slots' is
> > > to mention slot names for which the user expects logical walsenders to
> > > wait before sending th
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 2:44 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The difference is that the purpose of 'synchronized_standby_slots' is
> > to mention slot names for which the user expects logical walsenders to
> > wait before sending the logical changes to subscribers. OTOH,
> > 'synchronous
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:25 AM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > If we don't do something similar, then aren't there chances that we
> > > keep on waiting on the wrong lsn[mode] for the case when mode =
> > > SYNC_REP_WAIT_APPLY while sync-rep-wait infrastructure is updating
> > > different m
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 12:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kap
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 9:08 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Another question aside from the abo
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 4:04 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Another question aside from the above point, what if someone has
> > > specified logical subscribers in sync
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 2:55 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
>
> > Another question aside from the above point, what if someone has
> > specified logical subscribers in synchronous_standby_names? In the
> > case of synchronized_standby_slots, we
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 11:13 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:13 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Shveta,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:13 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Shveta,
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I was trying to h
On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 3:04 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
> >
> > Hi Shveta,
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I was trying to have a look at the patch again, it doesn't apply on
> > > the head, needs rebase.
>
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:40 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> >
> > I was trying to have a look at the patch again, it doesn't apply on
> > the head, needs rebase.
> >
>
> Rebased with the latest changes.
>
> > Regarding 'mode = SyncRepWa
Hi Shveta,
On Sun, Sep 8, 2024 at 11:16 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> I was trying to have a look at the patch again, it doesn't apply on
> the head, needs rebase.
>
Rebased with the latest changes.
> Regarding 'mode = SyncRepWaitMode', FWIW, SyncRepWaitForLSN() also
> does in a similar way. It g
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 12:56 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> Thanks for reviewing it so quickly.
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:35 AM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the patch. Few comments and queries:
> >
> > 1)
> > + static XLogRecPtr lsn[NUM_SYNC_REP_WAIT_MODE];
> >
> > We sh
Hi Shveta,
Thanks for reviewing it so quickly.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:35 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> Thanks for the patch. Few comments and queries:
>
> 1)
> + static XLogRecPtr lsn[NUM_SYNC_REP_WAIT_MODE];
>
> We shall name it as 'lsns' as there are multiple.
>
This follows the same na
On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 2:31 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Amit,
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I wanted a simple test where in the first case you use
> > synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' and in the second case
> > use standby_slot_names = A_slot, B_slot, C_s
Hi Amit,
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 11:00 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> I wanted a simple test where in the first case you use
> synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' and in the second case
> use standby_slot_names = A_slot, B_slot, C_slot, D_slot, E_slot. You
> can try some variations of it as
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:56 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:42 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> > > Ah that's a gap. Let me add some logging/warning in a similar fashion.
> > > Although I think I'd have the warning be relatively generic (e.g.
> > > changes are blocked be
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:58 AM John H wrote:
>
> For instance, in Shveta's suggestion of
>
> > > > We can perform this test with both of the below settings and say make
> > > > D and E slow in sending responses:
> > > > 1) synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)'
> > > > 2) standby_slot_n
Hi Bertrand,
On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 10:00 PM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
> Yeah, at the same place as the static lsn[] declaration, something like:
>
> static XLogRecPtr lsn[NUM_SYNC_REP_WAIT_MODE]; /* cached LSNs */
>
> but that may just be a matter of taste.
>
I've updated the patch to ref
Hi Shveta, Amit,
> > > > ... We should try to
> > > > find out if there is a performance benefit with the use of
> > > > synchronous_standby_names in the normal configurations like the one
> > > > you used in the above tests to prove the value of this patch.
I don't expect there to be a performan
Hi Shveta,
On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:42 PM shveta malik wrote:
> > Ah that's a gap. Let me add some logging/warning in a similar fashion.
> > Although I think I'd have the warning be relatively generic (e.g.
> > changes are blocked because
> > they're not synchronously committed)
> >
>
> okay, s
Hi John,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:22:08PM -0700, John H wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> > 1 ===
> > ...
> > That's worth additional comments in the code.
>
> There's this comment already about caching the value already, not sure
> if you prefer something more?
>
> /* Cache values to reduce contenti
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 5:11 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:28 PM shveta malik wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:35 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:39 AM John H wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Out of curiosity, did you compare with
> > > >
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:28 PM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:35 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:39 AM John H wrote:
> > >
> > > > Out of curiosity, did you compare with standby_slot_names_from_syncrep
> > > > set to off
> > > > and standby_slot_name
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:35 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:39 AM John H wrote:
> >
> > > Out of curiosity, did you compare with standby_slot_names_from_syncrep
> > > set to off
> > > and standby_slot_names not empty?
> >
> > I didn't think 'standby_slot_names' would impact
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:39 AM John H wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, did you compare with standby_slot_names_from_syncrep set
> > to off
> > and standby_slot_names not empty?
>
> I didn't think 'standby_slot_names' would impact TPS as much since
> it's not grabbing the SyncRepLock but here's a q
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 9:12 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:52 AM John H wrote:
> >
> > Hi Shveta,
> >
> > Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
> >
> > > > will leave user no option to unlink failover-enabled logical
> > > > subscribers from the wait on synchronous standby
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 2:52 AM John H wrote:
>
> Hi Shveta,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
>
> > > will leave user no option to unlink failover-enabled logical
> > > subscribers from the wait on synchronous standbys.
>
> That's a good point. I'm a bit biased in that I don't think ther
Hi Bertrand,
> 1 ===
> ...
> That's worth additional comments in the code.
There's this comment already about caching the value already, not sure
if you prefer something more?
/* Cache values to reduce contention on lock */
> 2 ===
> ...
> Looks like setting initialized to true is missing once
Hi Shveta,
Thanks for taking a look at the patch.
> > will leave user no option to unlink failover-enabled logical
> > subscribers from the wait on synchronous standbys.
That's a good point. I'm a bit biased in that I don't think there's a
great reason why someone would
want to replicate logical
On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 9:25 AM shveta malik wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:42 AM John H wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Can we make it a default
> > > behavior that logical slots marked with a failover option will wait
> > > for 'synchronous_standby_names' as per your patch's idea unless
> > > 'stand
On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 12:42 AM John H wrote:
>
>
> > Can we make it a default
> > behavior that logical slots marked with a failover option will wait
> > for 'synchronous_standby_names' as per your patch's idea unless
> > 'standby_slot_names' is specified? I don't know if there is any value
> > i
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:08:58PM -0700, John H wrote:
> I took a deeper look at this with GDB and I think it's necessary to
> cache the value of "mode".
> We first check:
>
> if (mode == SYNC_REP_NO_WAIT)
> return true;
>
> However after this check it's possible to receive a SIGHUP changin
Hi Amit,
Thanks for taking a look.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 10:34 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>
> The reading indicates when you set 'standby_slot_names_from_syncrep',
> the TPS reduces as compared to when it is not set. It would be better
> to see the data comparing 'standby_slot_names_from_syncrep
Hi,
Thanks Bertrand for taking a look at the patch.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 8:19 AM Bertrand Drouvot
wrote:
>
> + int mode = SyncRepWaitMode;
>
> It's set to SyncRepWaitMode and then never change. Worth to get rid of "mode"?
>
I took a deeper look at this with GDB and I think it'
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 4:21 AM John H wrote:
>
> Building on bf279ddd1c, this patch introduces a GUC
> 'standby_slot_names_from_syncrep' which allows logical failover slots
> to wait for changes to have been synchronously replicated before sending
> the decoded changes to logical subscribers.
>
>
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:00:46AM +, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:25:10PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote:
> > > The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running
> > > clusters
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 09:25:10PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote:
> > The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running
> > clusters with quorum-based synchronous replicas. For instance, if
> > the user has synchron
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 03:51:05PM -0700, John H wrote:
> The existing 'standby_slot_names' isn't great for users who are running
> clusters with quorum-based synchronous replicas. For instance, if
> the user has synchronous_standby_names = 'ANY 3 (A,B,C,D,E)' it's a
> bit tedious to have to recon
39 matches
Mail list logo
