Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns

On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 4:13 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 11:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 12:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 7:18 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > While editing back branch patches, I realized that the following
> > (parsed->xinfo & XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS) and (parsed->nmsgs > 0) are
> > equivalent:
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If the COMMIT record has invalidation messages, it could have catalog
> > + * changes. It is possible that we didn't mark this transaction as
> > + * containing catalog changes when the decoding starts from a commit
> > + * record without decoding the transaction's other changes. So, we ensure
> > + * to mark such transactions as containing catalog change.
> > + *
> > + * This must be done before SnapBuildCommitTxn() so that we can include
> > + * these transactions in the historic snapshot.
> > + */
> > + if (parsed->xinfo & XACT_XINFO_HAS_INVALS)
> > + SnapBuildXidSetCatalogChanges(ctx->snapshot_builder, xid,
> > + parsed->nsubxacts, parsed->subxacts,
> > + buf->origptr);
> > +
> > /*
> > * Process invalidation messages, even if we're not interested in the
> > * transaction's contents, since the various caches need to always be
> > * consistent.
> > */
> > if (parsed->nmsgs > 0)
> > {
> > if (!ctx->fast_forward)
> > ReorderBufferAddInvalidations(ctx->reorder, xid, buf->origptr,
> > parsed->nmsgs, parsed->msgs);
> > ReorderBufferXidSetCatalogChanges(ctx->reorder, xid, buf->origptr);
> > }
> >
> > If that's right, I think we can merge these if branches. We can call
> > ReorderBufferXidSetCatalogChanges() for top-txn and in
> > SnapBuildXidSetCatalogChanges() we mark its subtransactions if top-txn
> > is in the list. What do you think?
> >
>
> Note that this code doesn't exist in 14 and 15, so we need to create
> different patches for those.

Right.

> BTW, how in 13 and lower versions did we
> identify and mark subxacts as having catalog changes without our
> patch?

I think we use HEAP_INPLACE and XLOG_HEAP2_NEW_CID to mark subxacts as well.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/