From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Refreshing subscription relation state inside a transaction block |
Date: | 2017-06-13 16:33:12 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoAmBcrMf0W=Czzjc1=zk_rRSFjUUJozwxxNN5ou19FNug@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Petr Jelinek
> <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 13/06/17 09:06, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The commit ddd7b22b225ae41d16ceb218b387645cb9becfdc makes table sync
>>> workers stop when subscription relation entry is removed. It doesn't
>>> work fine inside transaction block. I think we should disallow to use
>>> the following subscription DDLs inside a transaction block. Attached
>>> patch.
>>>
>>
>> Can you be more specific than "It doesn't work fine inside transaction
>> block", what do you expect to happen and what actually happens?
>>
>
> If we do ALTER SUBSCRIPTION SET PUBLICATION during executing table
> sync then it forcibly stops concurrently running table sync worker for
> a table that had been removed from pg_subscription_rel.
Also, until commit the transaction the worker cannot launch new table
sync worker due to conflicting tuple lock on pg_subscription_rel.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-13 16:41:19 | Re: remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-13 16:28:34 | Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption |