Horton

Re: logical decoding and replication of sequences

Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-03-07T21:11:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 

On 3/7/22 17:39, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/1/22 12:53, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:16 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 6:04 AM Tomas Vondra
>>> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2/10/22 19:17, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>>> I've polished & pushed the first part adding sequence decoding
>>>>> infrastructure etc. Attached are the two remaining parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan to wait a day or two and then push the test_decoding part. The
>>>>> last part (for built-in replication) will need more work and maybe
>>>>> rethinking the grammar etc.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've pushed the second part, adding sequences to test_decoding.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The test_decoding is failing randomly in the last few days. I am not
>>> completely sure but they might be related to this work. The two of
>>> these appears to be due to the same reason:
>>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=skink&dt=2022-02-25%2018%3A50%3A09
>>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=locust&dt=2022-02-17%2015%3A17%3A07
>>>
>>> TRAP: FailedAssertion("prev_first_lsn < cur_txn->first_lsn", File:
>>> "reorderbuffer.c", Line: 1173, PID: 35013)
>>> 0   postgres                            0x00593de0 ExceptionalCondition + 160\\0
>>>
>>
>> While reviewing the code for this, I noticed that in
>> sequence_decode(), we don't call ReorderBufferProcessXid to register
>> the first known lsn in WAL for the current xid. The similar functions
>> logicalmsg_decode() or heap_decode() do call ReorderBufferProcessXid
>> even if they decide not to queue or send the change. Is there a reason
>> for not doing the same here? However, I am not able to deduce any
>> scenario where lack of this will lead to such an Assertion failure.
>> Any thoughts?
>>
> 
> Thanks, that seems like an omission. Will fix.
> 

I've pushed this simple fix. Not sure it'll fix the assert failures on
skink/locust, though. Given the lack of information it'll be difficult
to verify. So let's wait a bit.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Fix cache invalidation bug in recovery_prefetch.

  2. Revert "Logical decoding of sequences"

  3. Minor improvements in sequence decoding code and docs

  4. Handle sequences in preprocess_pubobj_list

  5. Update tab-completion for CREATE PUBLICATION with sequences

  6. Add decoding of sequences to built-in replication

  7. Stabilize test_decoding touching with sequences

  8. Call ReorderBufferProcessXid from sequence_decode

  9. Add decoding of sequences to test_decoding

  10. Replace Test::More plans with done_testing

  11. Logical decoding of sequences

  12. Respect permissions within logical replication.