From: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Truncate in synchronous logical replication failed |
Date: | 2021-04-26 06:16:43 |
Message-ID: | OSBPR01MB4888741AA82C0A817861A4CCED429@OSBPR01MB4888.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, April 26, 2021 1:50 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:18 PM osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
>
> The latest patch looks good to me. I have made a minor modification and
> added a commit message in the attached.
Thank you for updating the patch.
I think we need one space for "targetindex" in the commit message.
From my side, there is no more additional comments !
> I would like to once again ask
> whether anybody else thinks we should backpatch this? Just a summary for
> anybody not following this thread:
>
> This patch fixes the Logical Replication of Truncate in synchronous commit
> mode. The Truncate operation acquires an exclusive lock on the target
> relation and indexes and waits for logical replication of the operation to finish
> at commit. Now because we are acquiring the shared lock on the target index
> to get index attributes in pgoutput while sending the changes for the Truncate
> operation, it leads to a deadlock.
>
> Actually, we don't need to acquire a lock on the target index as we build the
> cache entry using a historic snapshot and all the later changes are absorbed
> while decoding WAL. So, we wrote a special purpose function for logical
> replication to get a bitmap of replica identity attribute numbers where we get
> that information without locking the target index.
>
> We are planning not to backpatch this as there doesn't seem to be any field
> complaint about this issue since it was introduced in commit 5dfd1e5a in v11.
Please anyone, share your opinion on this matter, when you have.
Best Regards,
Takamichi Osumi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-04-26 06:17:54 | Re: Parallel INSERT SELECT take 2 |
Previous Message | Andrey V. Lepikhov | 2021-04-26 06:01:12 | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |