Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 1 Aug 2022 20:01:00 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 7:46 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:45 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've attached updated patches for all branches. Please review them.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks, the patches look mostly good to me. I have made minor edits by
> > removing 'likely' from a few places as those don't seem to be adding
> > much value, changed comments at a few places, and was getting
> > compilation in error in v11/10 (snapbuild.c:2111:3: error: ‘for’ loop
> > initial declarations are only allowed in C99 mode) which I have fixed.
> > See attached, unless there are major comments/suggestions, I am
> > planning to push this day after tomorrow (by Wednesday) after another
> > pass.
>
>
> + {
> + int save_errno = errno;
> +
> + CloseTransientFile(fd);
> +
> + if (readBytes < 0)
> + {
> + errno = save_errno;
> + ereport(ERROR,
>
> Do we need the CloseTransientFile(fd) there? This call requires errno
> to be remembered but anyway OpenTransientFile'd files are to be close
> at transaction end. Actually CloseTransientFile() is not called
> before error'ing-out at error in other places.
>

But this part of the code is just a copy of the existing code. See:

- if (readBytes != sizeof(SnapBuild))
- {
- int save_errno = errno;
-
- CloseTransientFile(fd);
-
- if (readBytes < 0)
- {
- errno = save_errno;
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode_for_file_access(),
- errmsg("could not read file \"%s\": %m", path)));
- }
- else
- ereport(ERROR,
- (errcode(ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED),
- errmsg("could not read file \"%s\": read %d of %zu",
- path, readBytes, sizeof(SnapBuild))));
- }

We just moved it to a separate function as the same code is being
duplicated to multiple places.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.