| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication |
| Date: | 2023-11-13 10:32:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KGZ+a+7u6UknBiNAyfOokAApdTToNq6e4qgvkp2c5aPw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 1:52 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> It seems to me that INIT cannot be relied on for a similar reason.
> This state would be set for a new relation in
> LogicalRepSyncTableStart(), and the relation would still be in INIT
> state when creating the slot via walrcv_create_slot() in a second
> transaction started a bit later.
>
Before creating a slot, we changed the state to DATASYNC.
>
> However, if we have a failure after
> the transaction that created the slot commits, then we'd have an INIT
> relation in the catalog that got committed *and* a slot related to it
> lying around.
>
I don't think this can happen otherwise this could be a problem even
without an upgrade after restart.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2023-11-13 10:42:08 | Re: Re: How to solve the problem of one backend process crashing and causing other processes to restart? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-11-13 10:31:41 | Re: Add new option 'all' to pg_stat_reset_shared() |