| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: sequencesync worker race with REFRESH SEQUENCES |
| Date: | 2026-07-15 02:58:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20260715025809.cd.noahmisch@microsoft.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 03:37:54PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 10:22 AM Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > Fable 5 also wrote a lot more that neither it nor I confirmed by test case
> > construction. I'm attaching the report; feel free to disregard. Finding-2
> > about default_transaction_read_only=on looks worth fixing if true,
>
> Agreed on Finding-2 as well. The issue is that the sequencesync
> worker sets the value via SetSequence(), which calls
> PreventCommandIfReadOnly("setval()") for non-temp sequences, so with
> "default_transaction_read_only=on" on the subscriber the worker's
> transaction is read-only and sequence sync fails and never reaches
> READY. Table apply is unaffected only because
> ExecSimpleRelationInsert() bypasses the executor's
> ExecCheckXactReadOnly() path which is an undocumented, untested detail
> rather than a stated guarantee.
>
> For a minimal backpatch, we can force the sequencesync worker to run
> read-write (e.g. set default_transaction_read_only=off for its session
> at startup) so it matches table apply, plus a test that sets the GUC
> on the subscriber and verifies sequences reach READY. Separately, it's
> worth documenting that logical replication apply is exempt from
> default_transaction_read_only — it's a per-transaction default meant
> to guard user writes and never makes the node physically read-only —
> and making that exemption explicit for all logical replication workers
> so tables no longer rely on the bypass. What do you think?
I wouldn't document those things. default_transaction_read_only just has the
user write "BEGIN READ WRITE" instead of plain "BEGIN". Hence, it's more like
an "are you sure?" prompt than a restrictive guard. It's no surprise that
logical replication apply achieves the equivalent of BEGIN READ WRITE; I don't
see that outcome as an exemption.
If easy, I would have the worker do the C equivalent of "BEGIN READ WRITE"
instead of actually changing the GUC. That makes it clear exactly which areas
are overriding the default. But changing the GUC is fine.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-07-15 02:45:23 | Re: pgbench --continue-on-error: clarify TPS and failure reporting |