| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17389: pg_repack creates race conditions on streaming replicas |
| Date: | 2022-01-31 21:54:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20220131215407.3p3ycstwnj663apa@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Hi,
On 2022-01-31 16:11:15 +0000, PG Bug reporting form wrote:
> We've noticed that at least since 9.5, running pg_repack causes a race
> conditions on our streaming replicas, but _not_ on the primary where
> pg_repack is running. This manifests itself as a client briefly unable to
> open the relation getting repacked - but, in our testing and experience,
> only on the replica.
pg_repack is not part of postgres, so you're going to have to report this to
the developers of pg_repack.
> I would blame pg_repack - its whole purpose for being
> is to transparently remake tables, and quite possibly it got some of the
> details wrong - except that if its behavior appears atomic to clients on the
> primary, then surely it should on the replicas too?
pg_repack modifies catalogs in an unsupported way, so it's not surprising
you'd see some odd effects. Postgres locking and visibility logic doesn't know
about what pg_repack is doing, so it can't enforce correct semantics. I'd
assume that the repack developers haven't gotten the locking logic quite right
someplace.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-02-01 00:01:40 | BUG #17390: Function, to_date() -- unexpected values and a request |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2022-01-31 16:11:15 | BUG #17389: pg_repack creates race conditions on streaming replicas |