| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, marko(at)joh(dot)to, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15888: Bogus "idle in transaction" state for logical decoding client after creating a slot |
| Date: | 2019-07-10 07:55:01 |
| Message-ID: | 20190710075501.6cpzzm35j6hj2ezv@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2019-07-10 13:51:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 05:46:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Hmm ... so what that commit did is precisely to fix this bug.
> > Magnus thought at the time he was fixing a pg10 bug,
> > https://postgr.es/m/CABUevEwX4g8y=gmgfPzxFKS7gqjSYNR949Xc96OQm=YXJmh_Og@mail.gmail.com
> > but apparently now we see that the bug was older than that. Maybe it's
> > okay to backpatch further?
>
> Yes, I would not be against a back-patch in this case. There is a
> minor conflict because pre-9.6 WAL senders cannot run SQL queries but
> that looks simple enough to solve.
I'm not worried about backpatching that in isolation - but I'm worried
that just backpatching that indidividual commit isn't going to yield
particularly satisfactory behaviour. The code around this isn't super
robust, and pg10+ are noticably different due to the changes needed to
allow to execute normal queries over a replication connection.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-07-10 08:37:28 | Re: PG11 - Multiple Key Range Partition |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-10 07:07:25 | Re: BUG #15899: Valgrind detects errors on create gist index |