Re: Segfault logical replication PG 10.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mai Peng <maily(dot)peng(at)webedia-group(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, maxence(at)bothorel(dot)net
Subject: Re: Segfault logical replication PG 10.4
Date: 2018-07-18 15:03:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Mai Peng <maily(dot)peng(at)webedia-group(dot)com> writes:
> Here the backtrace

Hmm .. so this can be summarized as "logical replication workers should
provide an ActiveSnapshot in case the user functions they call want one".
Makes me wonder how much other transactional infrastructure is needed
but not present.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Fetter 2018-07-18 15:21:53 Re: Make foo=null a warning by default.
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-07-18 14:58:16 Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?