From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUG] "FailedAssertion" reported when streaming in logical replication |
Date: | 2021-04-27 06:51:53 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-v7KagBn3MOo5uoFxk=tVFh=A63xUM8L4-H_gEkt-GRkQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:05 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Can't we use 'txns_by_base_snapshot_lsn' list for this purpose? It is
> > > ensured in ReorderBufferSetBaseSnapshot that we always assign
> > > base_snapshot to a top-level transaction if the current is a known
> > > subxact. I think that will be true because we always form xid-subxid
> > > relation before processing each record in
> > > LogicalDecodingProcessRecord.
> >
> > Yeah, we can do that, but here we are only interested in top
> > transactions and this list will give us sub-transaction as well so we
> > will have to skip it in the below if condition.
> >
>
> I am not so sure about this point. I have explained above why I think
> there won't be any subtransactions in this. Can you please let me know
> what am I missing if anything?
Got your point, yeah this will only have top transactions so we can
use this. I will change this in the next patch. In fact we can put
an assert that it should not be an sub transaction?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amul Sul | 2021-04-27 06:52:20 | Re: Skip temporary table schema name from explain-verbose output. |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-27 06:35:32 | Re: [BUG] "FailedAssertion" reported when streaming in logical replication |