From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
Date: | 2021-02-03 01:08:07 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PtAKP1FoHbUEWN+a=8Pg_njsJKc9Zoz05A_ewJSvjX2MQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 12:26 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2021 at 3:31 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > After seeing Ajin's test [ac0202] which did a DROP TABLE, I have also
> > tried a simple test where I do a DROP TABLE with very bad timing for
> > the tablesync worker. It seems that doing this can cause the sync
> > worker's MyLogicalRepWorker->relid to become invalid.
> >
>
> I think this should be fixed by latest patch because I have disallowed
> drop of a table when its synchronization is in progress. You can check
> once and let me know if the issue still exists?
>
FYI - I confirmed that the problem scenario that I reported yesterday
is no longer possible because now the V25 patch is disallowing the
DROP TABLE while the tablesync is still running.
PSA my test logs showing it is now working as expected.
----
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v25-Testing-drop-table-20210203.txt | text/plain | 24.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-02-03 01:26:41 | RE: libpq debug log |
Previous Message | Hou, Zhijie | 2021-02-03 01:02:45 | RE: Determine parallel-safety of partition relations for Inserts |