From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Amit Kapila' <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
Date: | 2022-12-28 02:49:53 |
Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB58669CB06F6657ABCEFE6555F5F29@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Amit,
> In logical replication, it can happen today as well without
> time-delayed replication. Basically, say apply worker is waiting to
> acquire some lock that is already acquired by some backend then it
> will have the same behavior. I have not verified this, so you may want
> to check it once.
Right, I could reproduce the scenario with following steps.
1. Construct pub -> sub logical replication system with streaming = off.
2. Define a table on both nodes.
```
CREATE TABLE tbl (id int PRIMARY KEY);
```
3. Execute concurrent transactions.
Tx-1 (on subscriber)
BEGIN;
INSERT INTO tbl SELECT i FROM generate_series(1, 5000) s(i);
Tx-2 (on publisher)
INSERT INTO tbl SELECT i FROM generate_series(1, 5000) s(i);
4. Try to shutdown publisher but it will be failed.
```
$ pg_ctl stop -D publisher
waiting for server to shut down............................................................... failed
pg_ctl: server does not shut down
```
Best Regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-12-28 03:56:29 | Re: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |
Previous Message | Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) | 2022-12-28 02:47:56 | RE: Exit walsender before confirming remote flush in logical replication |