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 16:02:13 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoDgktf-S0XAOm9EsynfanPz=bxiHbbaJA-tDokGNpcEEw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. Then if we
rollback the transaction then these table sync worker start again from
the first. it's an rarely situation and not a damaging behavior but
what I expected is the table sync worker is stopped when the
refreshing transaction is committed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-06-13 16:04:34 | Re: WIP: Data at rest encryption |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-13 15:55:44 | Re: RTE_NAMEDTUPLESTORE, enrtuples and comments |