On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 12:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 11:20 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, May 19, 2024, at 2:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > I'm fairly disturbed about the readiness of pg_createsubscriber.
> > The 040_pg_createsubscriber.pl TAP test is moderately unstable
> > in the buildfarm [1], and there are various unaddressed complaints
> > at the end of the patch thread (pretty much everything below [2]).
> > I guess this is good enough to start beta with, but it's far from
> > being good enough to ship, IMO. If there were active work going
> > on to fix these things, I'd feel better, but neither the C code
> > nor the test script have been touched since 1 April.
> >
> >
> > My bad. :( I'll post patches soon to address all of the points.
> >
>
> Just to summarize, apart from BF failures for which we had some
> discussion, I could recall the following open points:
>
> 1. After promotion, the pre-existing replication objects should be
> removed (either optionally or always), otherwise, it can lead to a new
> subscriber not being able to restart or getting some unwarranted data.
> [1][2].
>
> 2. Retaining synced slots on new subscribers can lead to unnecessary
> WAL retention and dead rows [3].
>
> 3. We need to consider whether some of the messages displayed in
> --dry-run mode are useful or not [4].
>
The recent commits should silence BF failures and resolve point number
2. But we haven't done anything yet for 1 and 3. For 3, we have a
patch in email [1] (v3-0005-Avoid*) which can be reviewed and
committed but point number 1 needs discussion. Apart from that
somewhat related to point 1, Kuroda-San has raised a point in an email
[2] for replication slots. Shlok has presented a case in this thread
[3] where the problem due to point 1 can cause ERRORs or can cause
data inconsistency.
Now, the easiest way out here is that we accept the issues with the
pre-existing subscriptions and replication slots cases and just
document them for now with the intention to work on those in the next
version. OTOH, if there are no major challenges, we can try to
implement a patch for them as well as see how it goes.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANhcyEWGfp7_AGg2zZUgJF_VYTCix01yeY8ZX9woz%2B03WCMPRg%40mail.gmail.com
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/OSBPR01MB25525C17E2EF5FC81152F6C8F5F42%40OSBPR01MB2552.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
[3]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANhcyEWvimA1-f6hSrA%3D9qkfR5SonFb56b36M%2B%2BvT%3DLiFj%3D76g%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.