Hi,
On 11/9/23 3:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 8:09 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote:
Unrelated to above, if there is a user slot on standby with the same
name which the slot-sync worker is trying to create, then shall it
emit a warning and skip the sync of that slot or shall it throw an
error?
I'd vote for emit a warning and move on to the next slot if any.
But then it could take time for users to know the actual problem and
they probably notice it after failover.
Right, that's not appealing....
OTOH the slot has already been created manually on the standby so there is
probably already a "use case" for it (that is probably unrelated to the
failover story then).
In V32, the following states have been introduced:
"
'n': none for user slots,
'i': sync initiated for the slot but waiting for primary to catch up.
'r': ready for periodic syncs.
"
Should we introduce a new state that indicates that a sync slot creation
has failed because the slot already existed? That would probably
be simple to monitor instead of looking at the log file.
OTOH, if we throw an error
then probably they will come to know earlier because the slot sync
mechanism would be stopped.
Right.
Do you have reasons to prefer giving a
WARNING and skipping creating such slots?
My idea was that with a WARNING it won't block others slot creation (if any).
I expect this WARNING to
keep getting repeated in LOGs because the consecutive sync tries will
again generate a WARNING.
Yes.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
