Hi,
On 10/4/23 1:50 PM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 11:55 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
<bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/4/23 6:26 AM, shveta malik wrote:
On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 5:36 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
How about an alternate scheme where we define sync_slot_names on
standby but then store the physical_slot_name in the corresponding
logical slot (ReplicationSlotPersistentData) to be synced? So, the
standby will send the list of 'sync_slot_names' and the primary will
add the physical standby's slot_name in each of the corresponding
sync_slot. Now, if we do this then even after restart, we should be
able to know for which physical slot each logical slot needs to wait.
We can even provide an SQL API to reset the value of
standby_slot_names in logical slots as a way to unblock decoding in
case of emergency (for example, corresponding when physical standby
never comes up).
Looks like a better approach to me. It solves most of the pain points like:
1) Avoids the need of multiple GUCs
2) Primary and standby need not to worry to be in sync if we maintain
sync-slot-names GUC on both
As per my understanding of this approach, we don't want
'sync-slot-names' to be set on the primary. Do you have a different
understanding?
Same understanding. We do not need it to be set on primary by user. It
will be GUC on standby and standby will convey it to primary.
+1, same understanding here.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
