Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:15 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:43:54AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:23 AM Bertrand Drouvot
> > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 08:47:18AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 1:51 PM Bertrand Drouvot
> > > > <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:48:55AM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. last_inactive_at and inactive_timeout are now tracked in on-disk
> > > > > > replication slot data structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > Should last_inactive_at be tracked on disk? Say the engine is down for a period
> > > > > of time > inactive_timeout then the slot will be invalidated after the engine
> > > > > re-start (if no activity before we invalidate the slot). Should the time the
> > > > > engine is down be counted as "inactive" time? I've the feeling it should not, and
> > > > > that we should only take into account inactive time while the engine is up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good point. The question is how do we achieve this without persisting
> > > > the 'last_inactive_at'? Say, 'last_inactive_at' for a particular slot
> > > > had some valid value before we shut down but it still didn't cross the
> > > > configured 'inactive_timeout' value, so, we won't be able to
> > > > invalidate it. Now, after the restart, as we don't know the
> > > > last_inactive_at's value before the shutdown, we will initialize it
> > > > with 0 (this is what Bharath seems to have done in the latest
> > > > v13-0002* patch). After this, even if walsender or backend never
> > > > acquires the slot, we won't invalidate it. OTOH, if we track
> > > > 'last_inactive_at' on the disk, after, restart, we could initialize it
> > > > to the current time if the value is non-zero. Do you have any better
> > > > ideas?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think that setting last_inactive_at when we restart makes sense if the slot
> > > has been active previously. I think the idea is because it's holding xmin/catalog_xmin
> > > and that we don't want to prevent rows removal longer that the timeout.
> > >
> > > So what about relying on xmin/catalog_xmin instead that way?
> > >
> >
> > That doesn't sound like a great idea because xmin/catalog_xmin values
> > won't tell us before restart whether it was active or not. It could
> > have been inactive for long time before restart but the xmin values
> > could still be valid.
>
> Right, the idea here was more like "don't hold xmin/catalog_xmin" for longer
> than timeout.
>
> My concern was that we set catalog_xmin at logical slot creation time. So if we
> set last_inactive_at to zero at creation time and the slot is not used for a long
> period of time > timeout, then I think it's not helping there.
>

But, we do call ReplicationSlotRelease() after slot creation. For
example, see CreateReplicationSlot(). So wouldn't that take care of
the case you are worried about?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.