Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby

On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 1:19 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 12:23:14PM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 2:26 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > + LogicalConfirmReceivedLocation(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn);
> > > + LogicalIncreaseXminForSlot(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn,
> > > +    remote_slot->catalog_xmin);
> > > + LogicalIncreaseRestartDecodingForSlot(remote_slot->confirmed_lsn,
> > > +   remote_slot->restart_lsn);
> > > +}
> > >
> > > IIUC on the standby we just want to overwrite what we get from primary no? If
> > > so why we are using those APIs that are meant for the actual decoding slots
> > > where it needs to take certain logical decisions instead of mere overwriting?
> >
> > I think we don't have a strong reason to use these APIs, but it was convenient to
> > use these APIs as they can take care of updating the slots info and will call
> > functions like, ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredXmin,
> > ReplicationSlotsComputeRequiredLSN internally. Or do you prefer directly overwriting
> > the fields and call these manually ?
>
> I'd vote for using the APIs as I think it will be harder to maintain if we are
> not using them (means ensure the "direct" overwriting still makes sense over time).
+1

PFA v60 which addresses:

1) Peter's comment in [1]
2) Peter's off list suggestion to convert sleep_quanta to sleep_ms and
simplify the logic in wait_for_slot_activity()

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPtJAAPghc4GPt0k%3DjeMz1qu4H7mnaDifOHsVsMqi-qOLA%40mail.gmail.com

thanks
Shveta