From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error |
Date: | 2023-07-05 12:47:54 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LNdr33SvNcjJhKChtr6sH4QGv-PzCeb5kExQM0KXgbbQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 4:26 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-Jul-05, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I think after returning "???" from logicalrep_message_type(), the
> > above is possible when we get the error: "invalid logical replication
> > message type "X"" from apply_dispatch(), right? If so, then what about
> > the case when we forgot to handle some message in
> > logicalrep_message_type() but handled it in apply_dispatch()? Isn't it
> > better to return the 'action' from the function
> > logicalrep_message_type() for unknown type? That way the information
> > could be a bit better and we can easily catch the code bug as well.
>
> Are you suggesting that logicalrep_message_type should include the
> numerical value of 'action' in the ??? message? Something like this:
>
> ERROR: invalid logical replication message type "X"
> CONTEXT: processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16638" during message type "??? (123)" in transaction 796, finished at 0/16266F8
>
Yes, something like that would be better.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2023-07-05 12:49:39 | Re: pg_basebackup check vs Windows file path limits |
Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2023-07-05 12:43:35 | Re: Allow specifying a dbname in pg_basebackup connection string |