On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Instead I'm going to do what Ashutosh mentioned at the start, which is
> > to verify both the restart_lsn and the invalidated_at, when deciding
> > whether to ignore the slot.
>
> Sounds
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:56 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>
> > I have a old .partial file in the data directory to reproduce this.
>
> I don't think the .partial file is in itself important. But I think
> this whole thing is a distraction.
Yes, sorry
On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> I have a old .partial file in the data directory to reproduce this.
I don't think the .partial file is in itself important. But I think
this whole thing is a distraction. I managed to reproduce it
eventually, by messing with the slot and WAL at
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:40 AM sirisha chamarthi <
sirichamarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:11 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>>
>> > It appears to be. wal_sender is setting restart_lsn to a valid LSN even
>> > when the slot
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:11 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>
> > It appears to be. wal_sender is setting restart_lsn to a valid LSN even
> > when the slot is invalidated.
>
> > postgres@pgvm:~$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_receivewal -S s1 -D .
> >
On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> It appears to be. wal_sender is setting restart_lsn to a valid LSN even
> when the slot is invalidated.
> postgres@pgvm:~$ /usr/local/pgsql/bin/pg_receivewal -S s1 -D .
> pg_receivewal: error: unexpected termination of replication stream: ERROR:
>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 9:12 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:05 AM Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
>
> > > Thank you. I had pushed mine for CirrusCI to test, and it failed the
> > > assert I added in slot.c:
> > >
On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:05 AM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Thank you. I had pushed mine for CirrusCI to test, and it failed the
> > assert I added in slot.c:
> > https://cirrus-ci.com/build/4786354503548928
> > Not yet sure why, looking into it.
>
>
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 8:05 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>
> > > > I am a fan of stricter, all-assumption-covering conditions. In case
> we
> > > > don't want to check restart_lsn, an Assert might be useful to
> validate
> > > > our assumption.
> > >
> > >
On 2022-Nov-21, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> > > I am a fan of stricter, all-assumption-covering conditions. In case we
> > > don't want to check restart_lsn, an Assert might be useful to validate
> > > our assumption.
> >
> > Agreed. I'll throw in an assert.
>
> Changed this in the patch to
Thanks Alvaro, Ashutosh for your comments.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 6:20 AM Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2022-Nov-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> > Maybe. In that case pg_get_replication_slots() should be changed. We
> > should use the same criteria to decide whether a slot is invalidated
> > or
On 2022-Nov-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Maybe. In that case pg_get_replication_slots() should be changed. We
> should use the same criteria to decide whether a slot is invalidated
> or not at all the places.
Right.
> I am a fan of stricter, all-assumption-covering conditions. In case we
> don't
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 5:39 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Nov-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>
> > I think the condition should be
> >
> > if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(invalidated_at_lsn)) LSN and XID are
> > different data types.
>
> Yeah, this bit is wrong. I agree with your suggestion to just
On 2022-Nov-21, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I think the condition should be
>
> if (!XLogRecPtrIsInvalid(invalidated_at_lsn)) LSN and XID are
> different data types.
Yeah, this bit is wrong. I agree with your suggestion to just keep a
boolean flag, as we don't need more than that.
> and to be
Hi Sirisha,
Thanks for identifying the bug and the solution. Some review comments inlined.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 2:49 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2022-Nov-20, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
>
> > Hi Hackers,
> >
> > forking this thread from the discussion [1] as suggested by Amit.
> >
> >
On 2022-Nov-20, sirisha chamarthi wrote:
> Hi Hackers,
>
> forking this thread from the discussion [1] as suggested by Amit.
>
> Catalog_xmin is not advanced when a logical slot is invalidated (lost)
> until the invalidated slot is dropped. This patch ignores invalidated slots
> while computing
Hi Hackers,
forking this thread from the discussion [1] as suggested by Amit.
Catalog_xmin is not advanced when a logical slot is invalidated (lost)
until the invalidated slot is dropped. This patch ignores invalidated slots
while computing the oldest xmin. Attached a small patch to address this
17 matches
Mail list logo
