From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <wangw(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Smith, Peter" <peters(at)fast(dot)au(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |
Date: | 2022-03-09 06:02:21 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K989xCjgH=O_YBRwdmcwDY55rX8DnSym7GUSFGORj--A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:22 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 12:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:29 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > ---
> > > It might have already been discussed but the worker disables the
> > > subscription on an error but doesn't work for a fatal. Is that
> > > expected or should we handle that too?
> > >
> >
> > I am not too sure about handling FATALs with this feature because this
> > is mainly to aid in resolving conflicts due to various constraints. It
> > might be okay to retry in case of FATAL which is possibly due to some
> > system resource error. OTOH, if we see that it will be good to disable
> > for a FATAL error as well then I think we can use
> > PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP construct. What do you think?
>
> I think that since FATAL raised by logical replication workers (e.g.,
> terminated by DDL or out of memory etc?) is normally not a repeatable
> error, it's reasonable to retry in this case.
>
Yeah, I think we can add a comment in the code for this so that future
readers know that this has been done deliberately.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-03-09 06:45:01 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-03-09 05:52:01 | Re: Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error |