Re: Logical WAL sender unresponsive during decoding commit

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Logical WAL sender unresponsive during decoding commit
Date: 2022-10-20 13:47:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ_o_1C3VMOiHe0+HdsXpEPhkcTdLw-Bsv=-uxV9P=vPA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 1:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 5:17 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Pushed.
> >
> > I think this was a good change, but there's at least one other problem
> > here: within ReorderBufferRestoreChanges, the while (restored <
> > max_changes_in_memory && *segno <= last_segno) doesn't seem to contain
> > a CFI. Note that this can loop either by repeatedly failing to open a
> > file, or by repeatedly reading from a file and passing the data read
> > to ReorderBufferRestoreChange. So I think there should just be a CFI
> > at the top of this loop to make sure both cases are covered.
>
> Agreed. The failures due to file operations can make this loop
> unpredictable in terms of time, so it is a good idea to have CFI at
> the top of this loop.
>
> I can take care of this unless there are any objections or you want to
> do it. We have backpatched the previous similar change, so I think we
> should backpatch this as well. What do you think?

Please go ahead. +1 for back-patching.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2022-10-20 13:57:34 Re: date_part/extract parse curiosity
Previous Message Erik Rijkers 2022-10-20 12:45:50 date_part/extract parse curiosity