Re: BUG #16643: PG13 - Logical replication - initial startup never finishes and gets stuck in startup loop
Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Henry Hinze <henry.hinze@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2020-11-20T04:51:57Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:19 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 3:17 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > To cut a long story short, a tablesync worker CAN in fact end up > > > > processing (e.g. apply_dispatch) streaming messages. > > > > So the tablesync worker CAN get into the apply_handle_stream_commit. > > > > And this scenario, albeit rare, will crash. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for reproducing this issue. Dilip, Peter, is anyone of you > > > interested in writing a fix for this? > > > > Hi Amit. > > > > FYI - Sorry, I am away/offline for the next 5 days. > > > > However, if this bug still remains unfixed after next Tuesday then I > > can look at it then. > > > > Fair enough. Let's see if Dilip or I can get a chance to look into > this before that. > > > --- > > > > IIUC there are 2 options: > > 1) Disallow streaming for the tablesync worker. > > 2) Make streaming work for the tablesync worker. > > > > I prefer option (a) not only because of the KISS principle, but also > > because this is how the tablesync worker was previously thought to > > behave anyway. I expect this fix may be like the code that Dilip > > already posted [1] > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-uUgKpfdbwSGnn3db3mMQAeviOhQvGWE_pC9icZF7VDKg%40mail.gmail.com > > > > OTOH, option (b) fix may or may not be possible (I don't know), but I > > have doubts that it is worthwhile to consider making a special fix for > > a scenario which so far has never been reproduced outside of the > > debugger. > > > > I would prefer option (b) unless the fix is not possible due to design > constraints. I don't think it is a good idea to make tablesync workers > behave differently unless we have a reason for doing so. > Okay, I will analyze this and try to submit my finding today. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Commits
-
Fix replication of in-progress transactions in tablesync worker.
- 0926e96c4934 14.0 landed
-
Review logical replication tablesync code
- b05fe7b442fd 14.0 landed
-
Restore replication protocol's duplicate command tags
- 72e43fc313e9 13.1 landed
- 4e9821b6fac5 14.0 landed