Re: Questions on logical replication

On 6/5/24 14:54, Koen De Groote wrote:
>     https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-configuration.html
>     <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal-configuration.html>
> 
>     "Checkpoints are points in the sequence of transactions at which it is
>     guaranteed that the heap and index data files have been updated with
>     all
>     information written before that checkpoint. At checkpoint time, all
>     dirty data pages are flushed to disk and a special checkpoint record is
>     written to the WAL file. (The change records were previously flushed to
>     the WAL files.) In the event of a crash, the crash recovery procedure
>     looks at the latest checkpoint record to determine the point in the WAL
>     (known as the redo record) from which it should start the REDO
>     operation. Any changes made to data files before that point are
>     guaranteed to be already on disk. Hence, after a checkpoint, WAL
>     segments preceding the one containing the redo record are no longer
>     needed and can be recycled or removed. (When WAL archiving is being
>     done, the WAL segments must be archived before being recycled or
>     removed.)"
> 
> 
> And this is the same for logical replication and physical replication, I 
> take it.

High level explanation, both physical and logical replication use the 
WAL files as the starting point. When the recycling is done is dependent 
on various factors. My suggestion would be to read through the below to 
get a better idea of what is going. There is a lot to cover, but if you 
really want to understand it you will need to go through it.

Physical replication

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/high-availability.html

27.2.5. Streaming Replication
27.2.6. Replication Slots

Logical replication

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/logical-replication.html

WAL

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/wal.html



> 
> Thus, if a leader has a standby of the same version, and meanwhile 
> logical replication is being done to a newer version, both those 
> replications are taken into account, is that correct?

Yes, see links above.


> And if it cannot sync them, due to connectivity loss for instance, the 
> WAL records will not be removed, then?

Depends on the type of replication being done. It is possible for 
physical replication to have WAL records removed that are still needed 
downstream.

From

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/warm-standby.html#STREAMING-REPLICATION

"If you use streaming replication without file-based continuous 
archiving, the server might recycle old WAL segments before the standby 
has received them. If this occurs, the standby will need to be 
reinitialized from a new base backup. You can avoid this by setting 
wal_keep_size to a value large enough to ensure that WAL segments are 
not recycled too early, or by configuring a replication slot for the 
standby. If you set up a WAL archive that's accessible from the standby, 
these solutions are not required, since the standby can always use the 
archive to catch up provided it retains enough segments."

This is why it is good idea to go through the links I posted above.

> 
> Regards,
> Koen De Groote
> 


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com