| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error |
| Date: | 2023-07-05 10:56:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20230705105639.lsz7ogusvkukbvs5@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023-Jul-05, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I think after returning "???" from logicalrep_message_type(), the
> above is possible when we get the error: "invalid logical replication
> message type "X"" from apply_dispatch(), right? If so, then what about
> the case when we forgot to handle some message in
> logicalrep_message_type() but handled it in apply_dispatch()? Isn't it
> better to return the 'action' from the function
> logicalrep_message_type() for unknown type? That way the information
> could be a bit better and we can easily catch the code bug as well.
Are you suggesting that logicalrep_message_type should include the
numerical value of 'action' in the ??? message? Something like this:
ERROR: invalid logical replication message type "X"
CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16638" during message type "??? (123)" in transaction 796, finished at 0/16266F8
I don't see why not -- seems easy enough, and might help somebody.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Tom: There seems to be something broken here.
Teodor: I'm in sackcloth and ashes... Fixed.
http://postgr.es/m/482D1632.8010507@sigaev.ru
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-07-05 10:57:40 | Re: Disabling Heap-Only Tuples |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2023-07-05 10:44:31 | Disabling Heap-Only Tuples |