From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |
Date: | 2023-10-12 15:33:51 |
Message-ID: | d9db8cf3-fc6d-599d-697e-bd55dc8b24cd@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/25/23 12:20, Amit Kapila wrote:
> ...
>
> I have used the debugger to reproduce this as it needs quite some
> coordination. I just wanted to see if the sequence can go backward and
> didn't catch up completely before the sequence state is marked
> 'ready'. On the publisher side, I created a publication with a table
> and a sequence. Then did the following steps:
> SELECT nextval('s') FROM generate_series(1,50);
> insert into t1 values(1);
> SELECT nextval('s') FROM generate_series(51,150);
>
> Then on the subscriber side with some debugging aid, I could find the
> values in the sequence shown in the previous email. Sorry, I haven't
> recorded each and every step but, if you think it helps, I can again
> try to reproduce it and share the steps.
>
Amit, can you try to reproduce this backwards movement with the latest
version of the patch? I have tried triggering that (mis)behavior, but I
haven't been successful so far. I'm hesitant to declare it resolved, as
it's dependent on timing etc. and you mentioned it required quite some
coordination.
Thanks!
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-12 15:44:09 | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-10-12 15:26:49 | Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences, take 2 |