Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()
Date: 2021-05-20 12:58:47
Message-ID: CA+HiwqE_YmqT23a+hGipnGHa3wmjCT-1DcECfrYaiiyDCkci+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:59 PM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 3:30 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > While doing so, it occurred to me (maybe not for the first time) that we are
> > *unnecessarily* doing send_relation_and_attrs() for a relation if the changes
> > will be published using an ancestor's schema. In that case, sending only the
> > ancestor's schema suffices AFAICS. Changing the code that way doesn't
> > break any tests. I propose that we fix that too.
> I've analyzed this new change's validity.
> My conclusion for this is that we don't have
> any bad impact from this, which means your additional fix is acceptable.
> I think this addition blurs the purpose of the patch a bit, though.

Okay, I've extracted that change into 0002.

> With the removal of the send_relation_and_attrs() of the patch,
> we don't send one pair of LOGICAL_REP_MSG_TYPE('Y'),
> LOGICAL_REP_MSG_RELATION('R') message to the subscriber
> when we use ancestor. Therefore, we become
> not to register or update type and relation for maybe_send_schema()'s
> argument 'relation' with the patch, in the case to use ancestor's schema.
> However, both the pgoutput_change() and pgoutput_truncate()
> have conditions to check oids to send to the subscriber for any operations.
> Accordingly, the pair information for that argument 'relation'
> aren't used on the subscriber in that case and we are fine.

Thanks for checking that.

Here are updated/divided patches.

--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
HEAD-v5-0001-pgoutput-fix-memory-management-of-RelationSyncEnt.patch application/octet-stream 5.1 KB
PG13-v5-0002-pgoutput-don-t-send-leaf-partition-schema-when-pu.patch application/octet-stream 2.0 KB
HEAD-v5-0002-pgoutput-don-t-send-leaf-partition-schema-when-pu.patch application/octet-stream 2.1 KB
PG13-v5-0001-pgoutput-fix-memory-management-for-RelationSyncEn.patch application/octet-stream 5.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-05-20 13:01:11 Re: pg_rewind fails if there is a read only file.
Previous Message osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com 2021-05-20 12:39:06 RE: Forget close an open relation in ReorderBufferProcessTXN()