Re: long-standing data loss bug in initial sync of logical replication
Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani@google.com>
From: Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani@google.com>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-07-15T19:18:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix typo in test file name added in commit 4909b38af0.
- 50b8ad30f754 18.0 landed
- d96206f259d6 17.5 landed
- 9987c94662c2 16.9 landed
- 90bc4523fd47 15.13 landed
- bb1bc9fa962e 14.18 landed
- 4164d6976316 13.21 landed
-
Fix data loss in logical replication.
- 247ee94150b6 13.21 landed
- 4909b38af034 18.0 landed
- cadaf0ac4637 17.5 landed
- 9a2f8b4f01d5 16.9 landed
- 9f21be08e884 15.13 landed
- 0434033e8bb5 14.18 landed
-
Avoid invalidating all RelationSyncCache entries on publication rename.
- 3abe9dc18892 18.0 cited
-
Remove obsolete RECHECK keyword completely
- 7da1bdc2c2f1 18.0 cited
-
Backport BackgroundPsql perl test module
- 187b8991f70f 16.4 cited
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 11:42 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 15:31, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 6:19 PM Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani@google.com> wrote:
> > > I looked further into the scenario of adding the tables in schema to
> > > the publication. Since in that case, the entry is added to
> > > pg_publication_namespace instead of pg_publication_rel, the codepaths
> > > for 'add table' and 'add tables in schema' are different. And in the
> > > 'add tables in schema' scenario, the OpenTableList function is not
> > > called to get the relation ids. Therefore even with the proposed
> > > patch, the data loss issue still persists in that case.
> > >
> > > To validate this idea, I tried locking all the affected tables in the
> > > schema just before the invalidation for those relations (in
> > > ShareRowExclusiveLock mode).
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like a reasonable approach to fix the issue. However, we
> > should check SET publication_object as well, especially the drop part
> > in it. It should not happen that we miss sending the data for ADD but
> > for DROP, we send data when we shouldn't have sent it.
>
> There were few other scenarios, similar to the one you mentioned,
> where the issue occurred. For example: a) When specifying a subset of
> existing tables in the ALTER PUBLICATION ... SET TABLE command, the
> tables that were supposed to be removed from the publication were not
> locked in ShareRowExclusiveLock mode. b) The ALTER PUBLICATION ...
> DROP TABLES IN SCHEMA command did not lock the relations that will be
> removed from the publication in ShareRowExclusiveLock mode. Both of
> these scenarios resulted in data inconsistency due to inadequate
> locking. The attached patch addresses these issues.
>
Hi,
A couple of questions on the latest patch :
1. I see there is this logic in PublicationDropSchemas to first check
if there is a valid entry for the schema in pg_publication_namespace
psid = GetSysCacheOid2(PUBLICATIONNAMESPACEMAP,
Anum_pg_publication_namespace_oid,
ObjectIdGetDatum(schemaid),
ObjectIdGetDatum(pubid));
if (!OidIsValid(psid))
{
if (missing_ok)
continue;
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
errmsg("tables from schema
\"%s\" are not part of the publication",
get_namespace_name(schemaid))));
}
Your proposed change locks the schemaRels before this code block.
Would it be better to lock the schemaRels after the error check? So
that just in case, the publication on the schema is not valid anymore,
the lock is not held unnecessarily on all its tables.
2. The function publication_add_schema explicitly invalidates cache by
calling InvalidatePublicationRels(schemaRels). That is not present in
the current PublicationDropSchemas code. Is that something which
should be added in the drop scenario also? Please let me know if there
is some context that I'm missing regarding why this was not added
originally for the drop scenario.
Thanks & Regards,
Nitin Motiani
Google