| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Петър Славов <pet(dot)slavov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15114: logical decoding Segmentation fault |
| Date: | 2018-10-30 23:09:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20181030230931.22pms35u3sqx4i7c@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2018-10-31 08:07:36 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:45:57AM +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> > The receiver side *should* actually use RelationGetIndexAttrBitmap, the
> > problem there seems to be rather than we setup snapshot few lines of
> > code too late in worker.c.
>
> Does the worker need this much information though? It just needs to
> know about the replication index itself and its columns, not about all
> the other indexes. It may make sense to unify both code paths to behave
> similarly.
Replication needs to maintain the other indexes, and for that it needs
to evaluate predicates. So I don't understand how you could say that it
doesn't need to know about other indexes?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2018-10-30 23:23:43 | Re: BUG #15467: The database subdirectory "pg_tblspc/1932420460/PG_10_201707211/16400" is missing. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-30 23:07:36 | Re: BUG #15114: logical decoding Segmentation fault |