Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20221117080258.6q3gob3pc3zqz2hm@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it. (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL segments removed from primary despite the fact that logical replication slot needs it.
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Hi, On 2022-11-15 23:59:37 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Is something like the following scenario possible to happen? > > > > 1. wal sender updates slot's restart_lsn and releases the spin lock > > (not saved in the disk yet) > > 2. someone updates slots' minimum restart_lsn (note that slot's > > restart_lsn in memory is already updated). You mean ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN(), or update that specific slot's restart_lsn? The latter shouldn't happen. > > 3. checkpointer removes WAL files older than the minimum restart_lsn > > calculated at step 2. For xmin we have protection against that via the split between catalog_xmin/effective_catalog_xmin. We should probably mirror that for restart_lsn as well. We should also call ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN if only update_restart is true... > > 4. wal sender restarts for some reason (or server crashed). I don't think walsender alone restarting should change anything, but crash-restart obviously would. Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: