| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication from 11.x to 12.x and "unique key violations" |
| Date: | 2020-07-21 07:39:38 |
| Message-ID: | 809156.1595317178@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane schrieb am 20.07.2020 um 20:04:
>> Yeah, duplicate keys does seem odd here. Can you provide a self
>> contained example?
> I'll try, but this is a production system.
> Extracting the necessary anonymous data will be tricky.
If this is a PG bug, it should be possible to reproduce it with
completely random/generated data. The key ingredient that you
have and the rest of us don't is the process and timing by which
the primary key values are introduced.
> Is there any chance the version difference might cause this?
> And a slightly outdated 11.x at that?
Hmmm ... I do not recall any recent bug fixes that seem to match
this symptom, but replication isn't a part of the code that
I'm the world's best expert on. In any case, we do offer as
standard advice that you should reproduce a problem on the latest
minor release before filing a bug report.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2020-07-21 07:51:06 | Re: Logical replication from 11.x to 12.x and "unique key violations" |
| Previous Message | Vasu Madhineni | 2020-07-21 07:35:54 | Re: Multitenent architecture |