Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
От | shveta malik |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAJpy0uCL5gTMbvzaM+qnrKB20O3npHzZCcEtxZBxp=tBSEyRkQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance (Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve pg_sync_replication_slots() to wait for primary to advance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 1:37 PM Ajin Cherian <itsajin@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2025 at 11:22 PM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > There's also a minor merge conflict because func.sgml is not split > > into multiple files. > > > > Yes, I fixed this. > Thanks for the patch. Please find a few comments: 1) We can merge refresh_remote_slots and fetch_remote_slots by passing an argument of remote_list. If no remote_list passed, fetch all failover slots, else extend the query and fetch only the listed ones. 2) We can get rid of 'sync_iterations' and the logic within, as I think there is no need to distinguish between slotsync and API in terms of logs. 3) sync_start_pending is not needed to be passed to update_and_persist_local_synced_slot(), as the output of this function is good enough to tell whether slot is persisted or not. 4) Also how about having sync-pending in SlotSyncCtxStruct. It can be set unconditionally by both slotsync and API, but will be used by API. I think it can simplify the code. 5) We can get rid of 'pending_sync_start_slots', as it is not being used anywhere. 6) Also we can mention in comments as to why we are using the old remote_slots list in refresh_remote_slots() during subsequent cycles of API rather than using only the pending-slot list. thanks Shveta
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: