From: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: logical replication of truncate command with trigger causes Assert |
Date: | 2021-06-09 15:14:25 |
Message-ID: | C6BE98EB-158D-4130-9E1C-C3DCFAE0A023@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Jun 9, 2021, at 7:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Here's a draft patch for that. I decided the most sensible way to
> organize this is to pair the existing ensure_transaction() subroutine
> with a cleanup subroutine. Rather unimaginatively, perhaps, I renamed
> it to begin_transaction_step and named the cleanup end_transaction_step.
> (Better ideas welcome.)
Thanks! The regression test I posted earlier passes with this patch applied.
> Somewhat unrelated, but ... am I reading the code correctly that
> apply_handle_stream_start and related routines are using Asserts
> to check that the remote sent stream-control messages in the correct
> order? That seems many degrees short of acceptable.
Even if you weren't reading that correctly, this bit:
xid = pq_getmsgint(s, 4);
Assert(TransactionIdIsValid(xid));
simply asserts that the sending server didn't send an invalid subtransaction id.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-09 15:23:32 | Re: logical replication of truncate command with trigger causes Assert |
Previous Message | Thomas | 2021-06-09 15:05:35 | Patch: Range Merge Join |