Re: BUG #15293: Stored Procedure Triggered by Logical Replication is Unable to use Notification Events
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Marc Dean <marc.dean.jr@gmail.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, "michael.paul.powers@gmail.com" <michael.paul.powers@gmail.com>, "pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-07-24T21:56:04Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2018-07-24 17:43:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > But I wonder if we shouldn't actually move the signalling part of > > ProcessCompletedNotifies() into CommitTransactionCommand() in v11. Given > > that transactions can now commit without a ready command being sent, due > > to the addition of procedures, that kind of seems necessary? > > Hrm. I have a nasty feeling that that code is dependent on being executed > at the outermost logic level. In particular, ProcessCompletedNotifies > calls CommitTransactionCommand itself, so your proposal will create > infinite recursion. There may be some other issues too. Yea, I don't think we could do this without separating concerns in ProcessCompletedNotifies(). > Another question that needs consideration is whether an internal commit > should lead to immediate distribution of notifies to our own client. > I think it probably mustn't; from the standpoint of the client, its > originally-asked-for xact is still in progress, and it's not going to > expect any notifies until that ends. Yea, I agree on that. > So the proposed change is just wrong if you ask me. I was only proposing to move the signalling part of ProcessCompletedNotifies() into CommitTransactionCommand(), not the part that processes notifications for the currentbackend - so I don't think we actually disagree? > I agree we need some serious rethinking here. Maybe the fix will end > up being just a few lines, but it might take significant restructuring > too. Yea :(. I think we need to separate the SignalBackend() part into transaction commit, but leave the remainder of ProcessCompletedNotifies() to be done in outer loops like PostgresMain(). I'm not quite sure if there's a good way to handle the fact that currently the asyncQueueAdvanceTail() call depends on SignalBackend()'s return value. We probably don't want to do that work inside the CommitTransactionCommand() - i guess we could move to just doing it independent of SignalBackend()? One other thing, somewhat independent, I wonder is if it's actually problematic that we don't do ProcessCompletedNotifies() in a bunch of processes, because that means we'll not necessarily call asyncQueueAdvanceTail(). Perhaps that means we actually *do* need to do it around CommitTransactionCommand()? Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
Disallow LISTEN in background workers.
- e06cc024bd33 13.5 landed
- d84d62b6225b 14.0 landed
- 1316be28664f 15.0 landed
-
Send NOTIFY signals during CommitTransaction.
- 63f28776cb9f 13.5 landed
- 2e4eae87d02f 15.0 landed
- 0eff10a00844 14.0 landed
-
Make some efficiency improvements in LISTEN/NOTIFY.
- 51004c7172b5 13.0 cited