Re: Add the replication origin name and commit-LSN to logical replication worker errcontext

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 4:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 9:33 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:21 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 8:25 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:16 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The errcontext message would become like follows:
> > > > >
> > > > > *Before
> > > > > ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "test_pkey"
> > > > > DETAIL: Key (c)=(1) already exists.
> > > > > CONTEXT: processing remote data during "INSERT" for replication
> > > > > target relation "public.test" in transaction 726 at 2022-02-28
> > > > > 20:59:56.005909+09
> > > > >
> > > > > * After
> > > > > ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "test_pkey"
> > > > > DETAIL: Key (c)=(1) already exists.
> > > > > CONTEXT: processing remote data during "INSERT" for replication
> > > > > target relation "public.test" in transaction 726 committed at LSN
> > > > > 0/14BFA88 and timestamp 2022-02-28 20:58:27.964238+09 from replication
> > > > > origin "pg_16395"
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm a bit concerned that the message may be too long.
> > > >
> > > > If you are willing to use abbreviations instead of full
> > > > words/sentences perhaps you can shorten the long CONTEXT part like
> > > > below?
> > > >
> > > > Before:
> > > > CONTEXT: processing remote data during "INSERT" for replication
> > > > target relation "public.test" in transaction 726 committed at LSN
> > > > 0/14BFA88 and timestamp 2022-02-28 20:58:27.964238+09 from
> > > > replication origin "pg_16395"
> > > >
> > > > After:
> > > > CONTEXT: processing remote data during "INSERT" for replication target
> > > > relation "public.test" (txid 726, LSN 0/14BFA88, ts 2022-02-28
> > > > 20:58:27.964238+09, origin "pg_16395")
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am wondering whether we can avoid having a timestamp in the message?
> > > If one wants, it can be retrieved from the errors otherwise as well.
> > > For example, I see the below error in my machine:
> > > 2022-02-26 07:45:25.092 IST [17644] ERROR: duplicate key value
> > > violates unique constraint "t1_pkey"
> > > 2022-02-26 07:45:25.092 IST [17644] DETAIL: Key (c1)=(1) already exists.
> > > 2022-02-26 07:45:25.092 IST [17644] CONTEXT: processing remote data
> > > during "INSERT" for replication target relation "public.t1" in
> > > transaction 724 at 2022-02-26 07:45:09.083848+05:30
> > >
> > > Now, here, won't the time at the starting of CONTEXT serves our
> > > purpose. If we can remove the timestamp, I think the message won't
> > > appear too long. What do you think?
> >
> > The time of the CONTEXT log message and the time in the message would
> > largely vary when the subscriber is much behind the publisher. But I
> > basically agree that the timestamp in the message might not be
> > important, at least for now. If we will support conflict resolution
> > that resolves based on the commit timestamp in the future, we might
> > want it again.
> >
>
> Possible, but let's remove it for now as it will simplify the message
> and the need for additional branches. What do you think?

Agreed.

I've attached updated patches.

Regards,

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