| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
| Date: | 2021-02-02 13:24:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KcvqNQFkz6bFGBtNvtpk+XexwgqTvnTK-ofGtn5KY89w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 11:35 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Another failure I see in my testing
>
The problem here is that we are allowing to drop the table when table
synchronization is still in progress and then we don't have any way to
know the corresponding slot or origin. I think we can try to drop the
slot and origin as well but that is not a good idea because slots once
dropped won't be rolled back. So, I have added a fix to disallow the
drop of the table when table synchronization is still in progress.
Apart from that, I have fixed comments raised by Peter as discussed
above and made some additional changes in comments, code (code changes
are cosmetic), and docs.
Let me know if the issue reported is fixed or not?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v25-0001-Tablesync-Solution1.patch | application/octet-stream | 52.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-02-02 13:26:15 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2021-02-02 13:00:47 | Re: adding wait_start column to pg_locks |