| From: | hubert depesz lubaczewski <depesz(at)depesz(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Logical replication is missing block of rows when sending initial sync? |
| Date: | 2023-11-02 11:23:14 |
| Message-ID: | ZUOGohG9DArmXNvV@depesz.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 10:17:13AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Mon, 30 Oct 2023 07:10:35 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> > I've tried, but I could not reproduce the failure. PSA the script what I did.
>
> I'm not well-versed in the details of logical replication, but does
> logical replication inherently operate in such a way that it fully
> maintains relationships between tables? If not, isn't it possible that
> the issue in question is not about missing referenced data, but merely
> a temporary delay?
The problem is that date that appeared *later* was visible on the
subscriber. Data that came earlier was visible too. Just some block of
data got, for some reason, skipped.
Best regards,
depesz
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2023-11-02 11:24:32 | Re: Logical replication is missing block of rows when sending initial sync? |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2023-11-02 10:45:08 | Re: BUG #18177: certain queries under certain contexts take multiple orders of magnitude longer compared to v10 |