| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: logical replication syntax (was DROP SUBSCRIPTION, query cancellations and slot handling) | 
| Date: | 2017-05-02 17:27:17 | 
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZGdsDmqDbRTmpgxb9bQttkQgbyXTwCV1QcVKMHfA1QdQ@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> 2) don't drop because we know it won't work.  I see two options:
>    c) ignore a drop slot failure, i.e. don't cause a transaction abort.
>       An easy way to implement this is just add a PG_TRY block, but we
>       dislike adding those and not re-throwing the error.
Dislike doesn't seem like the right word.  Unless you rollback a
(sub)transaction, none of the cleanup that would normally do is done,
so you might leak buffer pins, memory, or other resources.  Unless the
code that can be run in the TRY/CATCH block is sufficiently restricted
as to make that a non-issue, which is rarely the case, it's not going
to work reliably at all.  I wonder why this API was even designed in a
way that made not re-throwing the error an option.
(I've wondered whether we should have some kind of mini-transaction
that is cheaper to abort but does only a critical subset of the
cleanup, but I haven't been able to figure out how you'd know whether
you only need to blow up the mini-transaction or whether you need to
kill the enclosing real (sub)transaction.)
>    d) rethink drop slot completely; maybe instead of doing it
>       immediately, it should be a separate task, so we first close the
>       current transaction (which dropped the subscription) and then we open
>       a second one to drop the slot, so that if the drop slot fails, the
>       subscription does not come back to life.
Something like this might work, although it's not clear how it
interacts with DROP .. CASCADE.  See
http://postgr.es/m/CA+Tgmob_hy0uQS9vq_9rDBgjpww3D3jBZ6twAKZOwaZigo4C3g@mail.gmail.com
for a very related point about adding subscriptions.
-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-02 17:36:05 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression | 
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-05-02 17:06:54 | Re: Potential hot-standby bug around xacts committed but in xl_running_xacts |