Re: "unexpected duplicate for tablespace" problem in logical replication

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 at 03:21, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:35 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:49:17AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > Andres, what do you think about this idea? I wonder if you just
> > > momentarily forgot about temporary relations when coding
> > > RelidByRelfilenumber -- because for that function to give well-defined
> > > answers with temporary relations included, it would need the backend
> > > ID as an additional argument.
> >
> >
> > Ignoring temporary relations entirely makes sense: one cannot get a
> > regclass from only a tablespace and a relfilenode, the persistence, as
> > well as a backend ID would also be required. I've not checked the
> > patch in details, but it's to say that the idea to cut temporary
> > relations sounds rather right here.
>
> That makes sense to me too.
>
> Regarding the patch, filtering by the relpersistence in
> systable_getnext() loop seems to be good to me. Alternatively we can
> add "relpersistence == RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP" to the scan key. The patch
> would need regression tests too.

The attached patch adds a new test and resolves an existing test
failure. However, a downside is that we can no longer verify the
mapping of the temporary tables.

Regards,
Vignesh